Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,606 Year: 4,863/9,624 Month: 211/427 Week: 21/103 Day: 1/9 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Meaning Of The Trinity
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2

Message 1861 of 1864 (911081)
06-08-2023 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1840 by candle2
05-22-2023 10:22 AM

Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
There are no intermediary or transitional fossils. None.
Anyone that says so is lying through their teeth.
No, the liars are the ones who falsely claim "There are no intermediary or transitional fossils. None." You are following those liars.
Here is my response to this same false creationist claim in Message 186, 11-Mar-2009 11:41 AM:
dwise1 writes:
Kelly writes:
Let me give you an example. I'll go back to the fossil record. If evolutionists and creationists are honest, we all know that the whole record is sparse at best and that transitional fossils do not exist.
. . .
If transitional fossils don't exist, then why are there so many of them? From a reply I had posted on CompuServe back on 08 July 1989:
As for the fossil sequences themselves, you obviously have not looked very far. You can find many such references in the article "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution" by Roger Cuffey in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu (Oxford University Press, 1984). In that article, Cuffey conducted a brief search, by no means exhaustive, of readily available materials to compile a bibliography of about 160 references of transitional fossils, including species of algae, corals, angiosperms, foraminiferans, bryozoans, brachiopods, gastropods, pelecypods, ammonoids, trilobites, crustaceans, echinoids, condonts, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, the crossopterygian-amphibian transition, the amphibian-reptile transition, the reptile-mammal transition, hominids, etc. He listed the references according to the following classifications of transitional fossils (going from more complete to less complete knowledge):

1. Sequences within a single higher taxon which grade continuously
from one species to another without break.
2. Sequences which grade continuously from one species to another
without break and linking across from one higher taxon to another.
3. Series of chronologically successive species within a single higher
taxon which grade from an early form to a later form.
4. Series of chronologically successive species which grade from an
early form to a later form and cross boundaries separating
different higher taxa.
5. Continuous series of higher taxa grading from earlier to later forms,
sometimes crossing from one higher-rank taxon to another
(not usually used to construct transitional-fossil sequences).
6. Isolated individuals (e.g. the most famous example, Archaeopteryx).

If you want me to give you a few of the references, I will be more than happy to do so, but I do balk at typing all 160 references. For that you should track down the book yourself. It also contains a number of other interesting articles, describes the events surrounding the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment" law, and contains the decision of the court.
I had given you a link to that court decision. Have you read it yet? What about Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker?
Also on that same forum on CompuServe, though a few years later in 1993, I met a remarkable creationist, Merle Hertzler. He was the first honest creationist I had encountered -- and I think the only one. He would honestly try to respond to questions and honestly engage in discussion. He was one of "creation science's" better and more coherent advocates. But honesty can have its price. He found his position to be indefensible and within a year went over to the side of evolution. This appears to be why we find so few honest creationists, because they eventually find that they cannot defend something as dishonest as "creation science".
Merle's site is at The Mind Set Free-- Merle Hertzler. He's no longer a Christian, but it's far more the fault of "creation science" than of evolution. On his "Did We Evolve?" page at Did We Evolve?, he describes how his creationist position kept evaporating as he actually examined the evidence. In much abridged form, so as to not create a massive post, here's what he wrote about transitional fossils:
Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. ... My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.
An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. ... He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . ... Perhaps [Gould] made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.
On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.
. . .
This is only the briefest of overviews of these strange creatures. In reality, there are thousands of species that span many millions of years, with many intermediate stages of many different features.
Now what on earth was God doing? ... Did God learn from past experience and introduce new creatures with improvement every several thousand years or so? Creationists would cringe at that suggestion. Then why do we find this progression? It is difficult to escape the all-too-obvious conclusion: God allowed the first mammal to evolve from reptiles through a process involving many millions of years. As a Creationist, I finally came to the point where I considered that possibility. ... Think for a minute of all of the varieties of mammals that you know--elephants, tigers, mice, dogs, and whales, to name a few. Did all of these descend from a sequence of mammal-like reptiles? Is there any other way to explain all of these intermediates?
The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.
I would never see the world in the same light. . . .
Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.
Kelly, "creation science" is lying to you about transitional fossils. In many testimonials given by atheists, I found the most common reason for their having become atheists was discovering that their religion and religious leaders had lied to them. It's not evolution that turns people into atheists; for many it's the teachings of "creation science".
Your groundless creationist assertion is clearly yet another creationist lie. When will you ever learn?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1840 by candle2, posted 05-22-2023 10:22 AM candle2 has not replied

Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002

Message 1862 of 1864 (911082)
06-08-2023 2:46 AM

Scavenger hunt time - When was the topic theme last detected in a message?

Or something like that©.

Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002

Message 1863 of 1864 (911087)
06-08-2023 9:30 PM

Topic going to summation mode
Everyone gets one last message (I think that's how it works).

Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003

Message 1864 of 1864 (911092)
06-09-2023 2:38 PM

The Trinity has always made sense to me without turning me into a polytheist. Recently, I saw a 5 minute explanation which made perfect sense.

I also have covered some of this before in Message 221, Message 268 and in discussions about the beliefs of Ellis Potter.
Based on what he has told us, candle2 is a Binitarian and is a member of the United Church of God which gets involved in this whole "God family" nonsense.
He found a platform right here in this topic, and may be able to add one more post of defense to his theology, but I think he has burned most of us out on it. (You all will likely say that I'm no different, however! )
ringo and I had a series of discussions on it--and ringo as usual addressed each and every one of my claims. If he is still with us, he no doubt would add a summation, but it may well be that he now knows the final answer to this mystery far better than anyone else in this topic.
jar also had some things to say, and in defense of both of them, they were the guardians of faith and belief at EvC and I never could convince them of anything new. Message 228
Both of them helped me to think and grow and know what I was prepared to throw away and what I was unable to throw away. This was overall a useful discussion topic.(Especially early on)
Our resident anti-theist AZPaul3 also had a few things to say. Message 581
Dredge was just too Catholic at the expense of logic,reason, and reality but EvC critics would argue that believers in general are too shut off from logic, reason, and reality and continue to this day to make Catholicism, or reformed Armstrong-ism, or Calvary Chapel non-denominationalism (that be me) a case for fact rather than belief.
The bad thing about this topic is that a few creationist arguments were Dredged over here and took the wind out of a good philosophy discussion in the futile attempt to argue against established science.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024