What am I if I believe we were created to evolve through natural processes?
The keyword is "created". If you believe a creator was necessary to the process, you're a creationist. To be fair though, we most often use the word for the worst kind of science-deniers. You're only the second or third worst kind.
The antediluvian world was obviously teeming with life beyond our ability to imagine, and the supposed fossil record is some kind of illusion, not really even as consistent as you believe, but the evidence favors the Flood in any case so obviously it's wrong.
"It's really amazing how anything anybody says can, and will, be obliterated by the endless destroying machine of EvC. Truth isn't the concern really, just demolishing the opposition, that's all, . . ."--Faith
Like I said before, you perfectly describe your own posts.
As I read further in your insulting unintelligent post... ... This is an insulting post so I'm ignoring it. ... I'm not threatening to leave, I'm just not going to read insulting posts any more. ... Amazing. Nothing but snark as usual. Amazing. ... EvC is obviously some kind of alternative universe. Nothing here makes sense, nobody makes sense, what people say about me would be funny if it weren't so bizarre. In any case I'm no longer discussing anything with people who insult me in such bizarre ways with such a strange lack of understanding of the argument. ... I've made the case and I'm not talking to people who insult me. ... No, I won't read it because of that insulting sentence and some other similar stuff I encountered on a quick skim. ... And Percy, if you come back to this post: I'm not reading anything else you post. [False, of course] ... All this is too tiresome. Either my opponents are low IQ or experiencing early dementia or just don't want to understand anything I'm saying. ... I hope you don't mind if I just say that your entire post is a bunch of wacko accusatory nonsense, as most of them have been in the last few days. It's so much more economical than slogging through it all to point it out statement by statement.
Don't you think it's time to close down this charade? ... You're very good at stating the establishment paradigm. It's all an elaborate fantasy but you're good at it. ... Not reading a stupid article that claims anything is 2.3 million years old, especially birds that would evolve all kinds of forms within hundreds of years. And the article is glaring white. ... I don't trust the evidence offered by your side, sorry. ... After reading your first two ridiculous paragraphs I have to take back what I said about trusting you to be honest. ... ...asking me for evidence is out of order.
This thread will end the same way - you'll eventually invent some excuses and abandon it, as you've done so many times before.
quote: Actually I've many times answered your ridiculous claim with a description of my model.
Except that your "model" doesn't explain the sorting. That is why you keep inventing excuses to ignore it. So jar was telling the truth and you are dishonestly trying to cover up that fact.
quote: And the Bible certainly is evidence of God, that's one of its major purposes, to document the miracles that prove His existence and who He is.
It's not exactly good evidence, in fact it is pretty much worthless as evidence for God. Your evaluation is based on a doctrine which assumes that the Bible is absolutely true ignoring even the internal evidence to the contrary. When you start with a question-begging and false assumption you can't hope to get a reasonable answer.
quote: the Bible is the only source of witnessed evidence of miracles that only God could do, in both the Old and the New Testaments.
And that is a big part of the problem. Miracle stories are a lot more common than actual miracles, and when the stories come from biased and superstitious people, often far removed from the actual events - let alone when the story is essentially fiction anyway - you haven't got anything like good enough evidence to accept a miracle.
I don't want to go off-topic by pushing it too much - but if you really think you have a good case feel free to start a topic on any example you like.
Just remember that your idea of a good case often isn't. For instance your guess about a map you can't even read properly is hardly solid evidence, no matter how strongly you believe it.
Apologies if this point was made already. I skimmed most of the thread because it's quite tedious.
Animals do sometime seek shelter in human-made structures (like, in this case, cars). That's because humans build structures to protect from the elements. Animals also seek shelter in structures not made by humans. To use an example that should be familiar in the US (at least in some parts), all sorts of animals hang around in gopher burrows.
Gophers build burrows to protect themselves from the heat and from predators in the desert. Other animals take advantage. Humans build structures to protect themselves from all sorts of climatic challenges. Other animals take advantage,