[loser]

Without the existence of gods, the actions of believers are simply acts of inhumanity, as their acts of mercy and kindness are acts of humanity.

Even with the existence of God, I believe this holds true. However, the Bible asserts that we are either led by God or pulled by Satan. It explains how God will dwell within a person if they allow Him in. Satan, on the other hand, forces his way in (possesses or binds). We have two opposite Spirits (good and evil) which operate by opposite methods. According to scripture, God does good through people who are willing. Satan does his evil by pulling the strings of people like a Puppet Master with puppets.

Of course, this is all nonsense to people who reject the reality of extraterrestrial beings. Spirits don't exist. Demon possession is just mental illness. There are no unseen forces working on human beings other than those already identified as natural forces. The supernatural is make believe and non-existent. There is no God.

I'm okay with that because God is okay with that. He's not calling everybody and He's choosing even less.The number of the faithful should continue to dwindle. Jesus remarked, "When I return, will I find any with faith?".

Not many, that's for sure.

There are many schools of thought. Creationists only have one, but science has many.

Well, the one school - the universe has always been here - cannot be divided any further. The second school - it hasn't always been here - can possibly be divided into different explanations as to what was there before the universe and how it could have come about, but I still only see two choices.

The existence of a supernatural god is presumed without reason or evidence; the existence of god is presumed to be an a priori assumption before any evidence is examined;...

And how is that different?

A blog I happened across today addresses this in detail:

I didn't agree with those assumptions.

Isn't science with its eagerness to explain everything not just another example of mental horror vacui? Is it different from religion in this respect? I think it is different.

I don't.

The Christian religion makes it clear that we see life "through a blurry window". There's a lot we don't know and can't understand but that's okay...in time, it will all be revealed. Science is a stab in the dark, an attempt to gather this 'unattainable' knowledge.

People are not as superstitious and ignorant as they were thousands of years ago.

More.

Are you incapable of coming up with other possibilities?

Absolutely. Either it's always existed or it hasn't. Either or...two choices.

Quote: Because they have turned to stone? Do you think they turned to stone?

Yes. Are you suggesting they don't?

If none of these "creatures" ever existed, then why do we have their bones? (Well, actually, mineralized bones - now rocks.)

Be sure and tell gallo...he thinks they have fossilized, too!

You are so selectivly skeptical...

And you think that this is detrimental to rational thought exactly how?

I don't know about you, but I am trying to honestly find the answers to the questions. That means I have to educate myself on all possibilities.

No one could ask for more.

Quote by: loser View Post Quote: Fossil cockroaches show significant evolution from modern species. What are these significant changes? Do you make an effort to miss the point?

No, the effort was to make a point!

[quote] For a long time creationists pretended that speciation wasn't possible, that no organism actually formed new species. However,when facing the impossibility of two of every "kind" on an ark, soon decided that the imagined barrier between kinds was actually at the level of genus. Just one example of the evolution of creationism as eternal religious truth. [quote]

For a long time, evolutionists pretended that evolution was a long, gradual change (anagenesis). However, when facing the impossibility of that theory championed by the theologian Darwin because of the fossil record, they soon decided to go with punctuated equilibrium (cladogenesis). Just one example of the evolution of evolution as eternal religious truth.

No creationist has ever been able to present any evidence for the imagined barrier between "kinds," nor has any creationist been able to offer an example of an organism that had actually reached that barrier and was prevented from further evolution.

Except for the evidence and example that evolutionists have not been able to cross that (not so) "imaginary" barrier by evolving (procreating) a kind into another kind.

But, of course, that doesn't prove macroevolution because it isn't. ... ...It is not macroevolution because all changes took place below the level of species.

Yeah, well, it's hard to prove things that don't exist.

If none of these "creatures" ever existed, then why do we have their bones?

They were mis-classified.

So would you like to try again, since you embarrassed yourself to such an extent in your first attempt?

What? You want me to embarrass myself again?

As I mentioned, you claimed to speak with authority on the topic. By the way, only 4 are dinosaurs, but all of those had feathers.

The bird-dinosaur connection has been discredited. What we see all the time in the fantasy cladistics tree is DEPICTIONS of ARTIST'S RENDITIONS of creatures that never existed. These 'feathered dinosaurs' which purport to show the bird-dinosaur connection are nothing more than the fossils of birds.

Is everybody completely brain-dead?

So here is the list again. What is a transitional? How could these creatures have existed and why are they gone if creationism is true? Quote: Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Pederpes, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Aconthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Greerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pakicetus, Ichthyolestes, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Dahlanistes, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Sinovenator, Byronosaurus.

Extinction of species has nothing to do with the validity of creationism.

Please post a picture of each of these 'creatures' and I will classify it for you (sorry, no depictions or artist's renditions accepted...we're not interested in myth and fantasy, only real creatures).

Please educate yourself lest you make yourself look foolish again.

I guess you never watched Columbo.

How sad that you can't distinguish between definitions of evolutions, examples of evolution, mechanisms of evolution, and theories of evolution. Tragically, creationists not only misunderstand, they see their own ignorance as an argument against science. That seems to be true in your case.

I can't tell you much about Harry Potter and his brand of magic either but my ignorance of your foolishness is an argument FOR SCIENCE and not against it. That is indeed true in my case.

There is no doubt, after 150 years of testing that the basics of evolutionary theory are correct. No major tenet of evolutionary theory has ever been shown to be incorrect.

You sure proved that. If you say so, who could doubt it?...certainly not YOU!

And it seems to have happened quite quickly, in the geologic scale of things. But certainly not in the time of a human life span. Evidence indicates that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and the first signs of life appear in the fossil record at about 3.8 billion years. But that doesn't begin to differentiate until about 570 million years ago. Relatively speaking, elementary life didn't take much time at all. More complex life took a long time after that. In fact, the time from the first signs of primitive life to the first signs of the development of complex life is longer than that from complex life to today.

Well, being eternal and all, I guess God does have a lot of time. Of course, how much are you going to know with just a hundred years to ponder...with half of that, for all intents and purposes, brainless?