Why Is The Bible So Revered As The "Word of GOD"?

[BrotherBuz]

mindphuk-

Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species –

“Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.”

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectlative after 150 years.

 

[BrotherBuz]

If evolution took "millions" of years, then there should be literally thousand of transitional links scattered throughout the fossil record. It only makes sense. You can dodge and run all you want, but you can't hide.

 

[mindphuk]

If evolution took "millions" of years, then there should be literally thousand of transitional links scattered throughout the fossil record. It only makes sense. You can dodge and run all you want, but you can't hide.

Again, if you won't give an example of what you think is a transitional, no one is able to help you. A transitional form is merely one that is in-between two others showing some evolutionary progress. We have literally thousands of examples, you are just not seeing it.

The problem seems to be that you are requiring more and more intermediates even though we have presented many.
If we have a basal species A and a present species D, we have shown you transitional species B and C. The problem is that now you want the transition between A and B and B and C. If we show you those, you complain that there aren't transitions between those transitions.

What you have done is set up an impossible task, one that you know has to fail. Considering the rare conditions that must occur for fossilization to take place, most normal people can see that we have clear transitions for many species. Some admittedly are more complete than others but what you seem to be asking for is unrealistic.

 

[KlosetKing]

If evolution took "millions" of years, then there should be literally thousand of transitional links scattered throughout the fossil record. It only makes sense. You can dodge and run all you want, but you can't hide.

The only dodging being done is by you sir. As Mindphuk has stated, like I have many times, you simply want more than could realistically be given. You will never have ENOUGH links. You want impossible amounts of evidence to support the theory, yet require NONE to believe your fabled story-book.

Then you turn around and accuse others of dodging even though we have respectfully answered every question of yours to the best of our ability.

Surely by now you realize how incredibly stupid you sound?

 

[budlover13]

The only dodging being done is by you sir. As Mindphuk has stated, like I have many times, you simply want more than could realistically be given. You will never have ENOUGH links. You want impossible amounts of evidence to support the theory, yet require NONE to believe your fabled story-book.

Then you turn around and accuse others of dodging even though we have respectfully answered every question of yours to the best of our ability.

Surely by now you realize how incredibly stupid you sound?

Ahhhh, the difference between faith and BLIND faith.

 

[mindphuk]

The only dodging being done is by you sir. As Mindphuk has stated, like I have many times, you simply want more than could realistically be given. You will never have ENOUGH links. You want impossible amounts of evidence to support the theory, yet require NONE to believe your fabled story-book.

Then you turn around and accuse others of dodging even though we have respectfully answered every question of yours to the best of our ability.

Surely by now you realize how incredibly stupid you sound?

The thing is, his accusations of dodging and running when we are obviously trying to be accommodating is pure trolling. Answering his questions head-on is obviously not dodging. He might not like the answers given, but it in no way amounts to running or avoiding.

@brotherbudz- your inability to have an adult conversation/debate has been quite evident since this thread started. Do you honestly think your immature tactics are working? You continually act like a troll by accusing but not engaging. Why don't you grow up and drop your high-and-mighty, superior attitude and come back to reality? Do you want to learn about evolution from an expert or would you rather continually dismiss it without cause and remain ignorant?

 

[BrotherBuz]

^^^ Sir, you should pay attention to the point. I told you "explicitly" the definition of transitional links and still you have failed. Just face it, you failed, then start dodging. Lol lol

 

[mindphuk]

^^^ Sir, you should pay attention to the point. I told you "explicitly" the definition of transitional links and still you have failed. Just face it, you failed, then start dodging. Lol lol

You should pay attention. Your definition of transitional is full of shit. You don't know what you are talking about. You cannot give an example of what this small gradation would look like by using real examples. You have no concept of reality and are asking for something that evolution does not predict. The only thing that we expect if evolution is true is that we should see progressive changes from an earlier form to a later form of an animal and that is exactly what you have been given.

Every time you complain about others running and dodging when you fail to provide a clear indication of what you think we actually should find just demonstrates how you are unable to support even your own belief but instead thrive on trying to dismiss everyone else.

A transitional fossil is any fossil which gives us information about a transition from one species to another. (Or, about a transition from one group of species to another group of species.) A transition simply means that, down through time, there was some sort of change. The change must be big enough so that each non-transitional fossil can be easily be sorted into either a "before the transition" pile, or a "after the transition" pile. A transitional fossil is one that falls between the two piles.

 

[budlover13]

You should pay attention. Your definition of transitional is full of shit. You don't know what you are talking about. You cannot give an example of what this small gradation would look like by using real examples. You have no concept of reality and are asking for something that evolution does not predict. The only thing that we expect if evolution is true is that we should see progressive changes from an earlier form to a later form of an animal and that is exactly what you have been given.

Every time you complain about others running and dodging when you fail to provide a clear indication of what you think we actually should find just demonstrates how you are unable to support even your own belief but instead thrive on trying to dismiss everyone else.

My 8th grade graduation was PRETTY small.........

 

[BrotherBuz]

mindphuk-

^^^ You obviously don't have a concept of transitional links. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or skeletons;instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it?

Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species –

“Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.”

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.

 

[budlover13]

mindphuk-



Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species –

“Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.”

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.

As Christianity has for 2,000yrs?

 

[BrotherBuz]

^^^ Care to explain, instead of dodging.

 

[mindphuk]

mindphuk-



Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species –

“Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.”

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.

Darwin did not have the fossil evidence that I have shown you. It is up to you to explain why the gradual changes that we have in all of the various species are not sufficient to be considered transitional. Repeating the same thing over and over does not help your case. There have been 150 years worth of fossils that Darwin did not know about. It is you that keeps dodging and running. Step up or shut up.

 

[Beansly]

'Jesus loves me this I know...for the bible tells me so.'

Duh.
Your over-thinking it man.

 

[ginjawarrior]

mindphuk-

Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species –

“Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.”

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectlative after 150 years.

meh i take your 150 years and raise you 2300 years

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?



this has been deemed impossible to answer by any theologian for the LAST 2000+ years and as such disproves jesus before he was even supposed to be born

 

[KlosetKing]

BrotherBuz: Evolution is false because you cannot provide an infinite amount of fossil links that fit a definition of 'transitional' that i will not fully elaborate on!

 

[BrotherBuz]

meh i take your 150 years and raise you 2300 years

Be reasonable!

 

[ginjawarrior]

Be reasonable!

avoidance dodging? looks like i got you on the ropes LOLOLOL

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

this has been deemed impossible to answer by any theologian for the LAST 2000+ years and as such disproves jesus before he was even supposed to be born

 

[mindphuk]

brotherbudz is a lot like that shar-pei in his avatar. They are an aggressive and tenacious breed but not very bright.

 

[BrotherBuz]

BrotherBuz: Evolution is false because we cannot provide a reasonable amount of transitional links.

Don't feel bad because Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species –

“Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine "gradations" between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.”

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.