111
edits
Changes
no edit summary
: (To Markr) Biblical evidence is that God kept the use of miracles to a minimum. Genesis specifically records that God brought the animals to Noah, but not that he assisted their distribution after.
: (To Markr) Biblical evidence is that God kept the use of miracles to a minimum. Genesis specifically records that God brought the animals to Noah, but not that he assisted their distribution after.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)
:: I was not 'waving away' anything. I was commenting on an encyclopedic entry which, as such, purports to be truth, with theoretical arguments against said encyclopedic entry. My lack of concrete evidence for my argument is a moot point given the lack of scientific evidence for the content of the article itself, given that mine is a criticism of something which poses itself as a truth.
:: I don't think in all truth that young roos - or any roos - could successfully have made the journey, across land and sea, without some sort of aid, so the suggestion of human interference seems the most plausible, without being much to go on.
:: What I was referring to with the rabbits was more that their populations would thrive with human influence - the harsh outback would not be friendly to a rabbit, and there would be little food untill humans settled down and grew crops and suchlike.
:: If we take it as true that there have been periods of history lasting 60 million years, then we also accept the changing nature of the earth, and the possibility of fossils being lost, even in the ''last'' 60 million years. Within the last ten thousand years or so is another matter, and as any archaeologist will probably testify, there are constant discoveries being made and therefore amendments to what we know or can learn from fossils.
:: I think the definition of evolution as a term, and natural selection as a theory, has changed very little since Darwin theorized the history of life. The agents which we believe natural selection to work on have changed, and as such, natural selection can be observed now on a microscopic level in genes, and this has led to changes in exactly how it is viewed. To the extent that bacteria can be viewed to evolve even in the [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html lab]. I very much resent being labelled under the terms of ''evolutionists'' without note though. Yes, it's true that I accept hard fact, and that scientific evidence has not been in any effective way refuted in this field, however, that does not mean that I deny the existence of God, nor does it necessarily mean that I absolutely reject the Bible. The most convincing argument I have ever heard for the existence of God can be put into one statement, that any act of creation must involve the creation of a being with a history that never took [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa2-cr.htm place.] Essentially, it goes that Adam was created as a full grown adult, this gives the appearance of having been a child, and a baby, with a naval or bellybutton, giving evidence of Adam having had a father before him. Given that Adam was the first person created, this appearance of history is false, but is still evident from research. This means that we can make accurate scientific or geological observations of a deep and distant past, which only in truth existed inside the mind of God. So the evolution of genes, and even speculatively the Big Bang, may be said to be the working of God's mind before we were born into physical existence.
:: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 08:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)