Still no answers to the questions about index fossils, missing links, information, specific examples of fraud from what you read on that site, whether you read the information thread at all, potential problems with the transitional series presented, explanations for such things as shared retroviral inserts and paralogs between the humans and other apes, if you saw Haeckel's drawings being used on what you read, and where you think the line should be drawn between chemistry and life.
"We seem to be dealing with the clash of three world views: 1. God did it suddenly; 2. God did it with an evolutionary spin with punctuated equilibrium(commonly called theistic evolution); and last but certainly not least: 3. Nature(there is no God) used evolutionary processes such as natural selection, mutations, primordial ooze, comets, asteroids and other random processes."
If those are the three choices, then number two is the only one it can be. We both have faith in God which eliminates 3 and there is no evidence for 1. There is abundant evidence for 2 and the others can be eliminated. It can only be.
"How all this specialized existence we see in the present world came about by happenstance boogles the mind of this pea-brained homo sapien."
Which is unfortunately an argument from incredulity. Just because something is too complex for us too understand or because we do not have sufficient knowledge of a subject to understand it does not mean that it cannot be true. It is an argument from lack of knowledge not an actual argument against evolution.
"to say it could have been a million years is completely contrary to the scripture--and history"
As to the first part, no more contrary than your immediately preceeding statement that it "could have been a creation second." The account is true but not literal.
As to the second part, you have yet to make any sort of argument as to how an old earth goes against actual history or to refute the things that show the earth to actually be old.
"As long as we cannot agree that there is an infallible standard revealed from God, there really is no basis for discussion."
Huh?
"A day, week, month, a million years, a billion years,
--that is not enough time to evolve the DNA of the simplist creatures--statistically, the numbers are astronomical."
Another assertion I will have to ask you to support.
But in case you try, which I doubt, I'll go ahead and predict that your basis will fail because it makes the mistake of assuming both a serial set of events and that it assumes that these events are random. That is to say, you will ignore that there is a massive amount of parallel actions occuring and that selective forces chose which events lead to favorable results.
Edit to add:
"Easier to get a Webster's Unabridged by exploding a print shop. Want to implode it? Go ahead. It probably will not work either."
Huh?
Who is talking about imploding or exploding anything? There are no selective pressures in an explosion of a print shop that would be expected to lead to a dictionary.
But then you reveal what will be another flaw in your logic if you try and justify your associated assertion. You will assume that a specific sequence is the only one that could do the job. In reality, there may be many, many more sequences that would do the job that you will not consider.
For a real world example see cytochrome C. This is a widespread protein that is not very sensitive to the exact sequence used to code it. Across the spectrum of life, a wide variety of versions of this protein (or the gene that codes for it, however you want to look at it) exist and they can be pretty much exchanged between widely different species and still work properly. And there is no way to know what other proteins with completely different sequences might be able to step in.
"We seem to be dealing with the clash of three world views: 1. God did it suddenly; 2. God did it with an evolutionary spin with punctuated equilibrium(commonly called theistic evolution); and last but certainly not least: 3. Nature(there is no God) used evolutionary processes such as natural selection, mutations, primordial ooze, comets, asteroids and other random processes."
If those are the three choices, then number two is the only one it can be. We both have faith in God which eliminates 3 and there is no evidence for 1. There is abundant evidence for 2 and the others can be eliminated. It can only be.
"How all this specialized existence we see in the present world came about by happenstance boogles the mind of this pea-brained homo sapien."
Which is unfortunately an argument from incredulity. Just because something is too complex for us too understand or because we do not have sufficient knowledge of a subject to understand it does not mean that it cannot be true. It is an argument from lack of knowledge not an actual argument against evolution.
"to say it could have been a million years is completely contrary to the scripture--and history"
As to the first part, no more contrary than your immediately preceeding statement that it "could have been a creation second." The account is true but not literal.
As to the second part, you have yet to make any sort of argument as to how an old earth goes against actual history or to refute the things that show the earth to actually be old.
"As long as we cannot agree that there is an infallible standard revealed from God, there really is no basis for discussion."
Huh?
"A day, week, month, a million years, a billion years,
--that is not enough time to evolve the DNA of the simplist creatures--statistically, the numbers are astronomical."
Another assertion I will have to ask you to support.
But in case you try, which I doubt, I'll go ahead and predict that your basis will fail because it makes the mistake of assuming both a serial set of events and that it assumes that these events are random. That is to say, you will ignore that there is a massive amount of parallel actions occuring and that selective forces chose which events lead to favorable results.
Edit to add:
"Easier to get a Webster's Unabridged by exploding a print shop. Want to implode it? Go ahead. It probably will not work either."
Huh?
Who is talking about imploding or exploding anything? There are no selective pressures in an explosion of a print shop that would be expected to lead to a dictionary.
But then you reveal what will be another flaw in your logic if you try and justify your associated assertion. You will assume that a specific sequence is the only one that could do the job. In reality, there may be many, many more sequences that would do the job that you will not consider.
For a real world example see cytochrome C. This is a widespread protein that is not very sensitive to the exact sequence used to code it. Across the spectrum of life, a wide variety of versions of this protein (or the gene that codes for it, however you want to look at it) exist and they can be pretty much exchanged between widely different species and still work properly. And there is no way to know what other proteins with completely different sequences might be able to step in.
, you will actually answer some of the questions raised on this thread instead of talking in pure, unsupported (and unsupportable) assuptions. I have faith in it. (Actually not really. You have gone on this long without answering any of the questions posed to you. If there were factual answers, you would have given them by now instead of talking about evolution being false because of exploding and imploding print shops.)