Which evolved first --- FRUIT BEARING TREES or FRUIT EATING CREATURES?

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes, I see what you're saying. It's a case of following through the basic principles of evolution.

Yep.

 

[truthofscripture]

Did the fruit bearing trees evolve first or did the creatures who ate those fruits evolve first? And just how did the trees LEARN that they had to produce fruits so that creatures ate them and thus their seeds were spread far and wide to produce more trees?

Neither evolved, they were both intelligently created. The vegetation first, then the souls (lives) were created.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Neither evolved, they were both intelligently created.

Proof?

 

[truthofscripture]

Proof?

Providing proof of that is quite an endeavor. I am not going to amass all the evidence that each creature popped into the fossil record suddenly. It's too much work just to answer a question. It would take several lifetimes to amass all the information that evolution could not possibly explain most of what exists in the way of plants and animals, much less the physical universe. It's like the old argument that if a tornado went through a junk yard that it's possible a 747 could "accidentally" be created. It's just not possible. The best proof I can suggest though, is to study the scriptures, comparing each one to each other one over and over. Eventually, you will come to an accurate understanding of them, and have your proof. If you want to come by the house twice weekly for the next couple years, I will teach you the truth of the scriptures, which will prime the pump so to speak, of your study of the scriptures. But to assume that I can spend countless hours amassing proof merely to answer a question is to assume that I am insane, which I am not.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's like the old argument that if a tornado went through a junk yard that it's possible a 747 could "accidentally" be created. It's just not possible.

A 747 is also the product of an evolution.

 

[truthofscripture]

A 747 is also the product of an evolution.

Not the same thing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not the same thing.

If you look at the natural world and the human world everything evolves over time. There is no evidence of stuff just magically springing into existence.

But basically what you seem to be saying is that you can't prove your assertion, which is based on your faith in a particular interpretation of some ancient religious texts?

 

[truthofscripture]

If you look at the natural world and the human world everything evolves over time. There is no evidence of stuff just magically springing into existence.

But basically what you seem to be saying is that you can't prove your assertion, which is based on your faith in a particular interpretation of some ancient religious texts?

Indeed there is in the fossil record. There is also evidence in the scriptures. There is no evidence of transitional species however. All such presented evidence has been proven to be falsified without exception.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is also evidence in the scriptures.

I don't regard an ancient religious text as "evidence" of anything.

 

[truthofscripture]

I don't regard an ancient religious text as "evidence" of anything.

Then, since you choose to eliminate the single best evidence of any subject ever, we cannot inteligently discuss this. Sorry Doctor.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then, since you choose to eliminate the single best evidence of any subject ever, we cannot inteligently discuss this. Sorry Doctor.

An ancient religious text isn't evidence of anything. All these texts "prove" is that at some point in the distant past the authors had a particular set of beliefs.

 

[truthofscripture]

An ancient religious text isn't evidence of anything. All these texts "prove" is that at some point in the distant past the authors had a particular set of beliefs.

The scriptures are not a religious text.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The scriptures are not a religious text.

My point stands. And of course there are many ancient religious texts, many of them contradictory.

 

[truthofscripture]

My point stands. And of course there are many ancient religious texts, many of them contradictory.

But the inspired word of God are the only texts from our creator. The rest come from false religion. The difference is massive.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But the inspired word of God are the only texts from our creator. The rest come from false religion. The difference is massive.

Obviously that's what you believe, but again, have you any proof of your assertions?

 

[truthofscripture]

Certainly. But not any that you would acknowledge.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Indeed there is in the fossil record. There is also evidence in the scriptures. There is no evidence of transitional species however. All such presented evidence has been proven to be falsified without exception.

If you said the exact opposite of what was stated here you would be right. The fossil record shows tremendous amounts of evidence for evolution. Transitional species are all species. Every bit of evidence for evolution that we hold to be true has survived the greatest scrutiny of any theory ever presented in science. And it has withstood that scrutiny all the stronger. There has never been any bit of evidence for ID. There have been claims of evidence and the only thing that they even had a slight handle on, which is irreducible complexity, has never been provided.

 

[truthofscripture]

If you said the exact opposite of what was stated here you would be right. The fossil record shows tremendous amounts of evidence for evolution. Transitional species are all species. Every bit of evidence for evolution that we hold to be true has survived the greatest scrutiny of any theory ever presented in science. And it has withstood that scrutiny all the stronger. There has never been any bit of evidence for ID. There have been claims of evidence and the only thing that they even had a slight handle on, which is irreducible complexity, has never been provided.

I've studied it for most of my life, and what you said here does not bear any resemblence to the facts on record.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I've studied it for most of my life, and what you said here does not bear any resemblence to the facts on record.

I doubt you have ever studied it at an accredited university. I have personal friends that are biologists that have their PhD in the study of biology and evolution. I have a decent grasp of the concepts as a layman but if you have any questions or concerns that I cannot answer I will gladly ask them for you.

 

[truthofscripture]

I doubt you have ever studied it at an accredited university. I have personal friends that are biologists that have their PhD in the study of biology and evolution. I have a decent grasp of the concepts as a layman but if you have any questions or concerns that I cannot answer I will gladly ask them for you.

I am glad you have friends, and your opinion of what I have and haven't done is of no concern to you.