How can evolution be true if there are no between-stage fossils? (+ 1 more question)

Originally posted by izoakl:i.e. lets say a girraffe came from a zebra, then why dont we have... quote 'Girrebra' fossils? We have girraffe and zebra fossils... but no 'girrebra'. (this is just some in-between form i made up).

​

And this goes for everything...

​

anyone have an answer?The answer is that evolution doesn't work in that way. Your comment is a common misconception usually continued by deceptive creationist groups like the ICR.Here is your answer:Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQmy next question is...

​

why do people argue over creation and evolution if evolution gives you NO destiny , and creation does.

​

You make your own "destiny" and the same as you make your own meaning/purpose in life.

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:That is the problem nos.

​

The tower of Babel was disrupted by God becasue 'they wanted to make a name for themselves'."tower of Babel"? That is only a myth to try and explain why there are so many different languages in the world.God, just as any father, created us to be sons and is dejected by sons wanting to 'name themselves' as much as any of us would be dejected at a son disowning his parent guided youth."dejected"? Is your god such a selfish monster that he/she/it would deny its children a chance to make their own lives? Your god sure is an unfit parent.Hell is nothing more than finding out that by 'naming' oneself you got what you wanted but it was bottom rung compared to what you could have had.You actually believe that slavery and absolute obedience is a good thing?What you call a forceful tyrant I call a loving father.You must have had a terrible childhood. What, your father was a control freak as well so you don't know what real love and understanding is?This misunderstanding between parents and children in this generation exactly mimics our evasion of our heavenly father. Every teenager at one time or other thinks his parents are tyrrants. Many realise the error of their ways once they pass through this stage. It is no differnt in approaching God. The Bible even explains that the culmination of earth history will be in the 'fathers joining with the children and the children joining with the fathers'.So, it is ok to smack down your children at least sign of independant thought or action? Like I had said, I feel pity for you, or any children you (may) have.My grandfather had 8 children and he never beat them or was abusive to them as you think is correct. He was a loving father and husband and allowed his children to make their own choices when they were old enough. Even when their choices were wrong he would welcome them back without a word of abuse. And when he finally died, at a very old age, he didn't die alone. I guess that my grandfather would have made a better god than the one you worship since he showed real love towards his children. And another thing, he wasn't much of a church goer or religious for all that matter either even though my grandmother was. They were happily married for nearly 60 years.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
MP

​

Who knows howmany interactions occurred between God and the first couple before that time. Within the context of the entire Scriptures I believe God acted because he could see the action of genuine rebellion and loved them too much to let it pass. Just as I chastise my kids out of love (most of the time).

---

"I'm only hurting you for your own good because I love you." That's sick.As I had stated in an earlier thread how could Adam and Eve rebell when they didn't know the concepts in the first place? Do you beat your infants severely the very first time they may have disobeied you? Would you toss them out into the streets with nothing as well? Would you be such an unfit parent and justify this by using your god as an example?

Originally posted by Peter:I think Adam and Eve got a warning first ... I tend to agree
with the rest though.Warning, what's a warning? If you have no real concept of right or wrong, good or evil what does the concept of consequences mean to you? Nothing.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-17-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:The warning was in the form of, 'If you eat of the tree, then you will die.' I think that one can understand consequences without understanding good or evil. I can throw an apple up in the air and understand that it can smack me in the head on the way down as a result of my action but it doesn't mean there is anything evil about it. The question is whether one who has not seen death (physical or spiritual) can truely comprehend the warning. That I think is a valid issue that needs to be discussed. At any rate, a great deal was learned from eating the Tree of Knowledge, both of agency and consequences.Die, what's a die? Remember, they had no concept of death either since there was none (Physical or otherwise). Death came afterwards. As well as pain and suffering. All of these things were suppose to be the result of eating the apple.The Simpson's did a funny short on Adam and Eve once and they had Homer (Adam) jumping off of waterfalls unto the rocks below without hurting himself and as well many other things which are deadly now. Like I had said, do you toss your children out into the streets with nothing the very first time they may have disobeyed you and they were too ignorant to realize what they had done? In order for there to be consequences one first must understand the concept of right/wrong and good/evil. This is the main flaw in the myth of Adam and Eve.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-18-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Uh yeah Nos. I mentioned that.Then the any warning would have been totally meaningless.I don't see it that way. The fall was a good thing. The warning was just that, a warning, not a commandment.Now you're starting to sound like Wordswordsman. One of our peculiar Scriptures: "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy."Then why not let them eat of the apple in the first place? Or do you believe that in order to get anything you have to steal it?If you don't understand it.If I didn't know any better I'd swear that I was talking to Wordswordsman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

Originally posted by izoakl:
i.e. lets say a girraffe came from a zebra, then why dont we have... quote 'Girrebra' fossils? We have girraffe and zebra fossils... but no 'girrebra'. (this is just some in-between form i made up).

​

And this goes for everything...

​

anyone have an answer?

​

--------
my next question is...

​

why do people argue over creation and evolution if evolution gives you NO destiny , and creation does.

​

---

​

Why on earth do you think that giraffes came from zebras?

​

If this is a "let's suppose" that you just made up, then I think that you might be interested to know that the Theory of Evolution NEVER "supposes" anything resembling your scenario.

​

Perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with what the ToE actually does claim, and the evidence which supports it, before continuting to waste time destroying false versions of it (strawmen). Here is a good place to start:

​

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

​

---

I already gave him that link, but I doubt that he'll bother to go there.

Originally posted by gene90:No, it wasn't meaningless because Eve was able to state the consequences of eating the fruit to the serpent.That is a contradiction, and another sign of the flaw since she wouldn't have understood the concept in the first place. Plus, this is just a means of blaming women for the pain and suffering of Mankind. Unless you also believe that women are wicked by their very nature as this myth seems to be implying? Afterall it must be true since it is in the bible.They were allowed to eat the apple in the first place. It was their own agency. God did not stop them from eating it. He could have but didn't.Even after he/she/it told them not to because they would die? Another contradiction.Red herring. You sure like fish.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Yeah it's a contradiction. It contradicts your position.
Now you need to either support your position or concede defeat.No, it contradicts the entire myth.Irrelevant. Silly also.Of course it is silly, but far too many believe that sort of nonsense.Red herring.Would you like a side order of rice with that?No, they were told that the consequence of their action would be death. Not a contradiction.Consequence is a meaningless concept to one who doesn't understand the concepts of right/wrong or good/evil as well. But since you believe in the bible I can see why you would see no problem with contradicting concepts since the thing is nothing but. If you use this as an example of how to raise your children I would only have pity for them and maybe put a call into a child protection agency.There's another useless, err, "contribution". Canada needs to teach epistemology. At lease we are taught something.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:(Irrelevant Crap Deleted)That is basically everything you wrote.Consequence is relevant to any entity capable of the most basic problem solving. A mouse can learn that by pressing a button in its cage food will pour out of a trap door. That is consequence. The mouse doesn't have any concept of right or wrong or good and evil but it has some grasp of cause and effect.Irrelevant. There was no pain or suffering in the garden before they ate of the apple. So consequences of any kind have no meaning. There would be no such thing as a mousetrap of anykind, because the lamb laid down with the lion.Take any three year old and leave them alone in the yard, with the gate open, and then see just how long it will take them to get in to the middle of traffic, even after you told them not to. Are you going to toss the kid out after you find out (If they don't get killed that is)?This is one reason why we also don't prosecute very young children as adults (Well, not those of us who are civilized that is.) They don't have the "software" to understand the consequences of their actions.What and by whom? The TV? Har har, you made a funny. Too bad that is all you have.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:I'm not talking about mousetraps, I'm talking about consequences. Pay attention. I flip a light switch and the light comes on, that's a consequence. The concept of consequences is independant of knowledge of good and evil.Not in this context. What are negative consequences when there is no pain or suffering? And this is what is meant by consequences in this situation. There was no real insentive to obey.Adam and Eve understood that there were consequences in eating the apple. They were not like young children, they were reasonable adults, with the exception that they could not tell the difference between good and evil.Wrong. They were children, of mind and experience if not body. There was no need to be at any other level of understanding since there was no need to know of survival either.They *knew* there would be changes if they ate of the tree.Who told you this? Are you speculating?Your problem is that you do not understand the difference between cause and effect and good and evil.Irrelevant in this context. I also said right/wrong.I don't understand how that is considering it is a painfully easy concept to understand. I think you are just incapable of accepting that you are wrong.You are not getting the context here. You are going by what things are like now. None of this was suppose to have existed BEFORE they ate of the apple. Haven't you read the myth, or at least have someone read it to you? Life was suppose to be "perfect" before the so-called "fall". Do you understand perfection?Canada is civilized? Probably so, I guess you're just a very bad representative. Har, another funny. Someone give you a joke book? Must be one with more pictures than words.But what can I expect, you believe in fairy tales as if they were real.BTW, I'm being quite civilized since I'm not swearing or cursing at you. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

I was right, talking to you is like talk with Wordswordsman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]I was right, talking to you is like talk with Wordswordsman[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

As I said, you don't know how a debate works and you aren't showing
any signs of progress.

​

Did you suddenly get tired of our little discussion of Japan?

---

You're exactly like Wordswordsman. And you know what he is.Here you are a theist and think that sacrificing one life for another is ok, and I'm an agnostic and think that that is immoral and wrong.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:You don't understand what the passage meant when Satan told them that they would not die, their eyes would be opened, be like God, and know the difference between good and evil. In this, Satan tells four lies. That they will live forever (the basis of reincarnation), that they will be like God (the basis of pantheism, that the universe is God and you are a part of God), their eyes would be open (the basis of esotericism) and know the difference between good and evil (the basis of relativism; that good and evil are relative). Adam and Eve weren't ignorant or stupid, as you seem to be making out. I can understand why you thought so, since Satan said that they would "know the difference between Good and Evil".Another example is if you tell your young child not to take candy from a stranger and yet does since they don't have any reason to believe you over them since they haven't learned what good and evil actually are. They had a lack of experience with this concept and truly had no knowledge of what any negative consequence would mean. They were children in this regard. Anyways the entire myth is self-contradictry as it is.BTW, it was not Satan, but a serpent. Satan, or Lucifer, didn't fall until much later. He defied god by falling in love with a woman.God said it was very good, not perfect. Where did you get the idea that he said it was perfect?Why from people like you. Adam and Eve were perfect so they could mate with each other and not worry about genetic problems and the like. God only creates perfection.It is quite clear that theists are incapable of seeing the obvious contradictions in theit belief systems. A prime example on here is Wordswordsman. Like him they will jump through hoops to try and make everything fit into what they want.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-20-2002]

Originally posted by Phantom Mullet:What this entire debate boils down to is free will and evil. My understanding of these is different from what I see here. In any case:

​

1) God exists[/b]Prove this assertion.2) God is all goodRead the OT.3) God is all powerfulApparently not.4) Evil existsProve this as well.Some people might bicker about what true evil really is, and whether the evil we see here on earth is true pure evil or just its effects, but the solution I have thought of (tho i doubt i am the first) is this: God made angels, heaven, earth, everything on earth. Therefore if Satan (a fallen angel!) can become a demon, where did the evil come from? God?Evil is a human concept only and doesn't exist in nature.A) What is good?
Q) What God wants.Even when it is evil.Evil is the OPPOSITE of God's will. Evil on earth does not have the power of creation, only of desecration and the scorning of God's will for a perfect world. Evil seeks only to ruin and destroy.Evil only exist as a abstract.Since this is getting long...Adam and Eve had free will.They were created to worship and be friends with God. Without free will, worship is meaningless."Human life and destiny is always endangered when prophets of
whatever sort demand, 'Frage nicht, glaube!' Do not question.
Believe!"
-Jack ForstmanWith free will comes choice and with that the ability to do evil (disobey God). Adam and Eve were not evil before the fall, but they had the POTENTIAL for evil. With free will comes choice. When they stood in front of the tree they had a choice. It was their first and only in the garden - a choice between good and evil.In order to be able to make a choice they first must understand what the difference was and since they didn't they couldn't have been able to choice since they would have had to know beforehand.God said no, Satan said yes and they chose evil.No, it was not Satan, it was the serpent. Satan's fall, Lucifer, came much later. Superficially it seems that they had no way to decide morally. This is untrue. the snake said something like "Eating that crap will make you like God." When he tricked them it was not a conjuring of magic, but an appeal to the potential evil in them. The choice here should be not evaluated on whether they ate the apple, but WHY they ate the apple. Eating the fruit to be like God is motivation by GREED.Even if this were true it would mean that they were still not at fault since they were tricked and blameless.Adam and Eve succumbed not because God made them defected robots, but because God gave them the opportunity for evil and they CHOSE evil when they could have resisted. Adam and Eve were just like us in the concern that they had control of their greed, they were not controlled by it.In order to choose they first must have understood what good and evil were and if they already did then they had no need to eat the apple.I assume that the same scenario happened in heaven when Lucifer became a fallen angel. We can take hope from the angels that stayed pure - perfection is not impossible for God's creations.Lucifer was punished for the love of a woman. Your god was jealous of this and thus cast him out for daring to love anything other than god. Your god is quite insecure and petty, and if evil does exist as a real physical thing it would be your god.