I think it must be the same logic that insists santa delivers presents.

Man created god and our nature shapes his good qualities as well as his vicious and intemperate nature. It's not possible to ascribe to god any characteristic that's beyond our comprehension and so he conforms to our behaviours as he must do. He loves, he forgives, he is merciful, he is enraged, he punishes, he makes war. If there's any non-human quality or behaviour god has that you'd like to point out for us, please do so, including definitions and comprehensible measurements for characteristics including but not limited to: Holy, almighty, eternal, omniscient, etc, etc, etc. 

I would say it would be like finding that 90% of the materials were identical, and they used the exact same construction methods, and so on, or better, that the plans had been copy-pasted from the same set of standard drawings with just the dimensions being changed. Even better analogy if one was a house and one was a bus, yet they used the same basic set of materials, IOW, like us and a pineapple, they looked nothing like each other, yet used the same construction materials,.

DNA is not the building materials, it is the specifications for the building materials and the way they are to be assembled. If the plans are identical in format, and the building materials are the same, with only the quantities and dimensions changed, it would be reasonable to guess that they have been based on the same fundamental building plan.

Here's another analogy - gramster is comparing two buildings using the same brand of bricks and mortar, whereas a far better analogy would be a model house and a model car both made out of Lego blocks, using plans from the same book.

So you're defining kind based on looks alone?

Yes and no, using your example A - B A1 looks no different than A2 except for a minor change, say slightly smaller ears, A2 looks no different than A3 except for slightly smaller ears than A2, skip a few numbers A999,999 - A1,000,000 looks no different except for minor change in coat colour. A1,000,000 - B looks no different except for we now have the modern cat genetically speaking, however A1,000,000 wouldn't really look any different than B. However this is really not a great example as Dogs and Cats are not in the same family, keeping it in the cannine family would be a far better example. However the other issue is that bones don't tend to become fossils every time and there are so many variables to play, including where to excavate and find fossils, how long between species etc, etc, etc. But there have been tons and tons of transitional fossils found, we are a species in transistion, but again, your ignoring the evidence that we already have.

First off science comes up with the answer to the questions posed or the problems that arises, it has to be able to explain a phenomena, it doesn't come up with and answer by merely guessing, those explanations have to have a way of verifying it. Hence why evolution is a proven fact, as well as a scientific theory (there is a difference here and I expect you to know the difference)

of course if everything that died became a fossil or remained safe from decay sure, however nature isn't that kind.

Again please see my example, A1-A2 are still A, they look nearly identical, A2-A3 look identical except for a minor change, A3 looks nearly identical to A1, A3 looks nearly identical to A4, A4 looks very close to identical to A1, A4 looks identical to A5 (again minor change) however A5 may look similar to A1 but not nearly identical. and evolution gradually continues on. It would still be in the same family, just like humans are apes and we are all in the same family Hominidae or great ape family. But a gorilla isn't a human and a human isn't a chimpanzee although we are classified in the same family. But again, I assume your trying to make the case of a dog producing a cat....doesn't work that way.

We do, you don't that a big difference, and the evidence to back it up is there, you haven't provided a satisfactory answer or provided a scientific evidence contrary to what has been proven to be true with evolution. As well you haven't proven god either. You fail to understand how the process of evolution functions, you want a cat to come from a dog, doesn't work that way.

First let me congratulate you for leaving the ministry. I am so glad that you have not "just hung around" like others sometimes do. There are more that should follow suit. I would guess that your "faith" must have been of the baseless type that atheists believe in if you let such a trivial matter "take you down".

First let me point out a couple of obvious facts that I am sure many will not like. It stands to reason that a God that could inundate the entire earth with water could also "keep the peace" among the animals, as well as make sure they all ended up where He wanted them to reside. It would not be rational to believe otherwise. If God were to explain in detail just how He accomplished all the things He did, the bible would not be a book, but an encyclopedia.

Second let me point out an error in your thinking process. For someone to make a case that something is reasonable, or believable, they do not need to come up with concrete evidence, but merely a possible way that it "could have happened". Conversely, to prove that something did actually happen requires a much more rigid standard.

Some people, even many creationists will not like this, but Grandpa does not have a problem with the possibility of God placing the animals where He wanted them after the flood, or at least helping them along. It would not be rational to believe He could not have done that if He is indeed God.

That being said, fortunately we do not have to resort to that. If you are interested, there is a good article by Nozomi Osanai who wrote a thesis on the genesis account of the flood. Includedare some answers to your above questions. So often critics of a certain view point will simplify, and make assumptions that are not necessarily valid.

It is not unlikely that God created just the original "parents" of all the life forms we have now. That would be the original ancestors that had the genetic information to pass along that would enable us to get the rest. In the flood scenario, He would probably have admitted only that group, cutting the number down considerably.

Again the bible does not give an extravagant detailed account of how God did it. We have only a brief accounting of the early events in this earth's history.

This article was published in "Creation Magazine" vol 19, issue 2, Mar 1997. It can be found on their website for easy access and reading. Just Google Creation Magazine. You will get there easily.

Aside from dealing with some "Grandpa" issues, I have been looking into some of the "science" issues and claims made about evolution. It was a real eye opening experience. The so called "science" of origins is "remarkable" indeed. 

I looked up information on fossils, the ice age, plate tectronics, dating, and other subjects. What I found was a field of "science" that has standards lower than I could possibly have imagined. I will give a few examples of what I found.

Example: Whale evolution - Gingerich (an evolutionary scientist) published some "information", including "pictures" showing the evolutionary steps from land animals (mesonychid) to whales. His article included an imaginative drawing of Pakicetus swimming and catching fish. He claimed it had an inner ear like a whales, and boldly called it a perfect intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later full fledged whales. What he did not mention is the fact that at that time, only skull fragments had been found. There was no evidence that Pakicetus had an inner ear like that of a whale, no evidence that it swam at all, no bones below the skull to show what type of body it had, and it was found buried with other "land animals". This supposedly remarkable find of a transitional "link", turned out to be nothing more than a fast running land mammal. Later finds of more complete specimens confirms this as whale expert Thewissen points out. Miller (another evolutionary scientist) made claims that Ambulocetus could move easily on both land and water using a diagram made artistically using also only a few bone fragments. The rest was purely artistic speculation. Gingerich also made exaggerated claims of Basilosaurus having functioning pelvis, leg bone, and knee cap. This was  also pure speculation from bone fragments that could not possibly lead to that conclusion. Than we note that the evolutionary diagram "artistically" showing the transition from land mammals to whales fails to mention that Basilosaurus is 10X the size of Ambulocetus. They are all drawn to look the same size.

Next I start looking up information on "feathered dinosaurs", and find more hoax's and fabrications than all of the "Noah's ark" finds put together. The "greater scientific community" was quick to confirm the apparent validity of the feathered dinosaurs found in China, even before they were made readily available to western scientists. These have since been proven to be fraudulent.

Evolutionary scientists quickly became excited at the prospect of extracting DNA from well preserved soft tissue in dinosaur bones, but blatantly overlooked the impossibility of DNA surviving 70 million years. These fresh bones do not fit the long age myth, but perfectly fit the 4,500 yr model. (seeing the pattern)

Fossils in pristine condition were also found with their original iridescence and original ligaments. These amazingly fresh specimens were estimated to be 165 million years old. This is amazing indeed.

When so called science starts with a conclusion that is doggedly held to by "faith", than holds this to be the "gospel truth", and try's to make everything observed fit into this mold, reason breaks down and insanity follows.

So what is a reasonable person to do? Am I expected to believe that since I do not have a degree in science, or possess extensive and detailed knowledge of the "science" backing the evolutionary model the only choice is to accept the conclusions of these "blind guides" as fact by "faith". Now that's a scary thought. That would be very similar to the dark ages when the bible was available only in latin and the people were told they were too ignorant to understand it. Therefore, they were to depend on "the church" to interpret it, and pass the "truths" on to them. I believe the results would probably turn out about the same also.

No. I will stick to the belief that a simple old man like myself can and must rely on common sense and reason, examining the evidence for myself and accepting only what makes sense.

As for references, I have made this easy for you. All of the above information you can find on the Creation Magazine website, each article complete with detailed references of it's own. Just Google creation magazine. Look up the following:

A '165 million year surprise" by Andrew Snelling" vol 19 issue 2 march 1997.

Also "seeing the pattern", "a whale of a tale", "feathered fossils" and much more. Most of the article's have links to click on that take you to more detailed information. It is a real easy site to navigate.

Gramps

You call this research?????  Did you look at any real science?  No?  You just took the word of some people who are also not scientists.  And you call that common sense.  I call it pathetic.

Again why isn't the Pakicetus part of the whale family in your books? I mean aside from the fact that it is a land animal, which it is expected since whales evolved from land animals (as did Dolphins and Porpoises) Oh and discoveries in 2001 also show that the inner ear part was correct, so your statement of course is one ignorance, which you have latched onto by a very bias website that omits just that small detail. But if scientists were looking for a land mammal from which whales evolved from why would they be looking for only animals that could swim and not land mammals from which the whale may have evolved from? Oh and the Pakicetus is still considered part of the whale chain of evolution so yeah your wrong to date. As for your artistic impressions you do realize that these are not done just as mere guesses, but after studying what fossiles they do find make a far better educated guess of how the creature looked like or most like the formation of the creature.

As for for Basilosaurus everything states that was 18 meters long and that the Ambulocetus was 3 meters long, nothing deceptive there, even if an artist drawing was just showing them side by side was it mean't as a comparison of size of just of features....hmmm i wonder. Who looks just a the pictures and makes guess of the size of creatures? Last time I checked those that take science seriously use those pictures mainly to understand the features, and if it is about size comparison then there would be one of size comparison much like this one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Cetaceans.svg which wow has comparison of size of the creatures.....see what happens when you actually do research and don't use a biased website out to disprove evolution (and never actually doing that, never using common sense either and of course never proving god as the only other option....or proving god exists at all) oh and the Basilosaurs have been found in Egypt, the US and Germany, and probably has the most of all fossils found as well, well makes me see that you still have no clue what your talking about. The Ambelocetus has had various fossils found in Pakistan pretty much a complete skeleton, so why do you think scientists made up wild stories about this creature again?

considering your track so far of using a completely biased and uninformed website, I am just going to say is that your will most likely disregarding any things shows to the contrary, so I will just state that you sir are again ignorant on this topic.

Nope I wouldn't believe it either and in truth it was not dinosaur flesh or soft tissue at all, if of course your would do some non biased research this would have been known, yes Schweitzer did make that claim of finding flesh, it wasn't until they actually examined it and independent scientists also examined it and determined to be bacteria. Of course you would have known this if you bothered to actually follow the story or done a weeeeee bit of research.

the great thing is we don't live in the dark ages any more and information is widely available for all to examine, if you like you can also talk with so called scientists, yes some of it is hard to understand and I get lost trying to understand it as well, however just because you don't understand doesn't make it false, your common sense so far has been well that of someone not willing to look at the evidence provided and simply deny it all.

I see, using a very biased website, that has never disprove evolution nor proven god to exist......somehow I am supposed to believe them with their so called facts, even those they don't bother properly examine the evidence.....and yes there has been more evidence to prove evolution since 1997.

"Living Fossils" are perfectly consistent with evolution. They rely on evolutionary selection pressure to keep their genome from 'degrading' the way you describe. They are species that have found a very stable ecological niche.

An 'explosion' at an early period is also entirely unremarkable, since if you are starting from a very low number of variants, there are plenty of viable options unused, so lots of opportunity for 'staking a claim' on a new body-plan.

But there are only a finite number of basic options, so as they become taken up, the rate of new ones inevitably slows down to the situation dominated mainly be re-shuffling of the viable possibilities.

It is awfully simple, really. 

Any more anti-evolutionist myths we can sort out for you, gramps?

I think latincanuck covered the rest pretty well, I just couldn't resist pointing out those two really basic misunderstandings.

First off no not all fish rise to the top when they die, most tend to sink, second, not all get eaten, some simply again sink, and either their flesh get eaten by bacteria or smaller prey but the bones tend to not be eaten, third underwater volcano or an underwater land slide can also cause rapid burial, but however the most common explanation i find, why there are so many marine fossils...very simply put water covers over 70 percent of the earth.....most life is in the oceans......and well it has a far better ideal environment for preservation than on land. Since in the ocean the sediment tends to be far better for preservation than land due to the fact that the sediment on ocean floors tend to be more on the soft stone or loose sediment side rather than hard ground, or rock, movement in the ocean, especially by creatures than live on the ocean floor will disturb, that sediment will again fall down usually covering anything laying on the ocean floor. There are various species of marine creatures that do live on the ocean floor and use this loose sediment to cover themselves up until a prey comes around to which they then rise up, of course disturbing the sediment can causing a skeletal remains to be covered, of course this is my simply explanation, and I know there are tons of more explanations regarding how and why there are an abundance of marine fossils.....of course the fact that 70 percent of the world is covered in water I would expect there to be more fossils in water areas or in areas that were covered in water at one point in time or another. As well creatures of hard shells like oysters, snails and carious other hard bodied creatures are found more in abundance that fish, the reason again is due their composition of a hard outer body which is far better for it to become a fossil. However again, there are far better explanations other than the one you gave....which i only really found in the creationist websites that used rapid burial as the most common type. However I have found that there are various explanations, such are permineralization, cast and molds (this occurs as an imprint from inside of the creature usually, like the shell of a snail for example, replacement and recrystallization, compression fossils and bioimmuration. Of course you can use this site http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/1/166 which gives even more examples of causes for marine fossilization, I would personally avoid creationist sites unless the person running it is a geologist or better yet works as a paleontologist. However from the scientific side speak or study those that actually work in that field....they tend to understand this topic far far better than those with mere opinions, like the majority of creationists sites I have seen so far regarding this topic.

I am not going to address the rest of what you posted, in reality, the creationist sites and their opinions hold no ground to the scientific evidence and method, to date, no creationist papers regarding evolution or the discredit of evolution has ever held up, not even in court, second unlike the scientific community which has various ways to provide evidence against a theory, creationist only provide opinion and zero evidence, most of the time the so called creationist scientist that are providing this so called evidence aren't even biologists, or even have a doctorate degree in any related field. With that said, even if evolution is discredited, it does not mean that it proves god created everything, all it means is that the explanation of the theory of evolution (which by the way is how evolution is both a fact and a theory...which is a fact because it has been proven and observed to have occurred, and a theory which is the explanation of the event of phenomena, this is the problem creationists have, you can discredit the theory, you cannot discredit the fact, you still have to provide a logical, rational and of course proper explanation of the phenomena that is occurring, simply saying god did it doesn't provide the proper explanation nor is there any evidence that god did anything, nor is there any evidence that god exists which is where the biggest of all problems lies in the creationist camp, they have yet to prove god exists, and is therefore a possibility in the explanation of life on this planet), there are tons and tons of more explanation to go through, ways to re-evaluate the evidence and only once you have disproved all other explanations, can you then some how start to use god as a possibility, and even which god is another topic altogether.

How and why did you reach the conclusion that whatever caused the universe to exist is an intelligent being?

Also, I should just add: if you think that evolutionary theory doesn't hold much water or doesn't make sense, it's because you don't understand it. I suggest you don't get your 'facts' from online creationist websites.

Yea we could all make an online creationist website, pulling facts out of thin air doesn't take genius, only a little imagination. There are a few people left who think the earth is flat so obviously there are plenty who are willing to believe anything and are stupid enough to not look into these "facts".

Alright Gramps, I'll bite.

Let's just for the sake of argument assume that all of your premises to date are completely accurate and that as a Christian you're willing to provide evidence to back up your claims.  You've proved that your six thousand year old god exists (he doesn't), he created life through some bizarre mixture of evolution and creations (when he really wouldn't need to other than to retroactively shoehorn creationism into systems that are demonstrably provable), that prophecy exists (and that your god has a monopoly on it), and that (for some reason) hell isn't consistent with Christian theology.  You've completely stomped all of us logically deficient atheists.  Wonderful.

I suppose I just have one last question for you.  How is your god not still an all-powerful, genocidal monster?

I mean at the point that you're willing to concede that you believe that, say, Noah's flood is a historical event (regardless of the fact that China seems to have weathered it pretty well) and that it utterly obliterated all life that wasn't present on the ark, don't you still have to offer some proof as to how this was a just action?  Personally, that seems a little harsh for an entity that can supposedly do whatever it wants up to and including administering perfect justice in the alleged afterlife.  Especially if you're a baby.

But hey, babies can be pretty wicked, right?  Maybe that example was a little too loaded to be fair.  Shall we try another?  God kills every firstborn Egyptian to convince the pharaoh to let the Israelites leave Egypt.  While its good to see those pesky babies getting their due comeuppance from the almighty, isn't killing people to prove a point sort of hard to justify?  Doesn't it become harder to justify when god can just poof the Israelites to any other part of the of the world he wants a la the spontaneous post-flood animal movement hypothesis you advanced a couple of posts ago?

This is to say nothing of gang rapes, forced incest, murdering his own children for things he didn't actually do, and the destruction of multiple cities and cultures that may or may not have had it coming.

If he exists, why would anyone willingly follow this monster?  Wouldn't it instead make much more sense for every non-smited man, woman, and child to spend every waking moment feverishly trying to figure out ways to neutralize this killer before he inevitably finds fault with them and smites them too?  Or maybe it's the very fear of being smote (smited? smitten?) that allows him to retain followers?  But then how is that consistent with the omni-merciful god you've postulated?

And, you know, with all of this smiting going on would you care to explain how Lot's wife was more deserving of it than, say, Pol Pot? 

   When it concerns the claims of Christianity and the existence of "God" I could never be accused of anything resembling a consistent bias as my beliefs have come full circle regarding that topic.   If you were to have asked me at the age of 14 if I would accept Christ as my Savior I would have laughed in your face.  Guess what ?  I became a Christian at age 15 and remained faithful to those beliefs for a large portion of my adult life.  If you would have asked me during my time as a Christian if I ever felt there was a possibility of walking away from my faith I would have been deeply offended and answered with an emphatic "no!"

  Now in my early fifties, I have done what I thought I could never do, renounced my religious faith and remained an atheist.  Additionally, in spite of your accusation of bias, I still do not find the concept of a caring, benevolent, Divine being unappealing in the least ,  I find it unrealistic, ....and therein lies the difficulty.

   ps, I anticipate the typical rebuttal that I was never a real believer yet the majority of Christian apologists still regard "apostasy" as a relevant concept and a possible outcome in regards to their faith.    http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/025.apostate.html

This kind of makes me wish that there existed fields of study in which bias were removed through some sort of review process carried out by some sort of qualified group of peers...

First I want to say that it does not bother me at all when atheists are dismissive, sarcastic, or even profane. This is what adds character to this site. It is rather refreshing to be able to express oneself without having to worry about offending someone, and hopefully have a little fun along the way.

Also, if I were raised in a church where we were taught that "sinners" would burn in hell for all eternity, I would probably have defected before the age of 12 myself. I would strongly advise anyone who wishes to be a rational Christian that they seek out a church or group of believers that do not teach this terrible lie. The wages of sin is death (not eternal life in hell fire). And the gift of God is eternal life. We do not have eternal life within ourselves, and God will not eternalize sin and suffering. Therefore the wages of sin must be death.

Now for all those FJM's that stick their thumbs up their noses, slobber all over themselves, call God all kinds of names, laugh like idiots slapping each other on their butts, and generally wasting time and space. Let's take a look at your claims and the "logic" behind them.

When sin came into existence, God had some choices to make. He could have just "zap" wiped the offenders out of existence. He could have "white washed" their brains, and taken away their ability to rebel. He could have just turned a blind eye, and let sin and suffering continue forever. Or He could take the hard road, let sin run it's course so all could see the results, and make a plan to take a people on a journey down through time allowing for eventual redemption for those who desire it. God did the later. Since you are wiser and more rational than God maybe you can come up with a better choice.

For the sake of argument, let's take a look at a simple analogy. Let's  say that you have to make a choice. One choice will result in the eminent deaths of 100 people that are suffering with terminal illnesses and have about 5 days left to live. The other choice will result in the deaths of millions of young, healthy, and happy people. Not to do anything would result in them all dying. We all value the lives of people whether they are young or old, healthy or sick, etc. But the choice has to be made. What would you choose to do? Most people would probably very reluctantly choose to "kill" the 100 terminally ill people for the sake of the millions of healthy ones. Some may not have the guts to do anything at all, and let them all die, but not take responsibility. What would you do?

From all the moaning and complaining about God's choices I can only assume that you are either too ignorant or bias to be able to see clearly what God was facing, or that you would choose to "kill" the millions of healthy, leaving the sick to suffer 5 more days and die. Man are you ever warped! What kind of sicko are you anyway.

The one choice that God could have made that would be monstrous indeed, would be to let sin, suffering, and death continue throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. But, that is exactly the choice you are advocating. You want things to go on as they are, without any intervention from God, with all of the suffering, disease, and death, forever. Thank God you are not in control.

This old world that has rebelled against it's creator is in some ways like a stage. You, like Lucifer, have made the  claim that God is a monster and that man would be better off without Him (if He indeed does exist). What we see now going on in the world is the result of that choice. It is not God's doing. It is the result of Lucifer, and people like you who have rebelled against God. Thank God He does have a plan to put an end to sin and death. It is indeed the "better" plan.

Gramps

Lol. We don't claim to be wiser and more rational than God. We don't believe in God.

If he does exist and is running this world though, I would do things much differently. I would create everyone with free will, but with a far greater willingness to do things that I consider good and not so much evil. I would keep some negative stuff to preserve "humanness" and individuality. But, overall, people should be kinder, smarter, and more open-minded. It'd be sort of like taking the 5% of people that I like the most in the world and making that everybody. It's like moving the middle of the gene pool a bit. Non-human evils seem rather pointless, so I'd just eliminate pretty much all of those things. The weather would be more constant and tuned for the best crop yield. No diseases. No earthquakes. Etc. Oh, I think I also want to make it so that people can live to be about 200 years old. But, of course, after they die, they disappear. 

I would reveal to the world that I exist, such that there will be no doubt that I exist. Not just some 2000 year old compilation of ignorant religious ramblings, but I would physically show myself in the sky and speak to them. However, I would not require them to worship me. I think I would allow them to elect a Congress which has the power to override my decisions, given a large enough majority opposed (2/3?). Of course, I would be God, so ultimately, the power of this Congress would rest only my willingness to allow them to override me. So, it would be very problematic if I was ever corrupted by power. But, at this point, I'm not God yet, so I can only make a plan and hope for the best.

Well, that's easy. I have to let the 100 ill people die.

I don't see how this is relevant though. God is omnipotent; he doesn't have to deal with such silly choices. He can just save everybody.

Uh....no.

If there was a God, I would certainly want him to intervene and stop all this suffering. Where is he?

Edit: I accidentally wrote "Fonzie" instead of Gramster. I hope the reason is obvious.

True everyone has a bias. The hard part is to take a hard look and study what you so vehemently adhere to and to consider where the weak points are in it. It is really hard for a believer to set aside his belief structure and consider it in the same light as any other god belief or disbelief because for many this is doubt and is sinful or in their opinion damning.

Perhaps you should follow the example that the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas suggests: "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear." Perhaps you are too quick to dismiss any and all things that may contradict your hard fast beliefs. As you say, all have a bias it is an extremely hard thing to stand back and place your belief to the side and examine the fine details. I have no idea based on your Internet posts what examinations you have given to your beliefs. If you can't set it aside to scrutiny, it is not unlike trying to patch a Windows OS while it is in use, you will fail.

Actually this misunderstanding comes from those who accept your beliefs not from those that consider all gods to be a human desire for justification of existence. Death and illness is but part of the cycle of life and has no need for an imagined god as an explanation. When atheists throw the comment at you that your god is a schizophrenic serial killer it refers to the writings by men who so documented their ideas and stories in such a way that when read the god appears to have need of mental health treatment or at least Prozac or Zoloft.

Didn't he know sin was going to come into existence?  Didn't he in fact design mankind knowing that sin would come into existence? 

How exactly is flooding the entire Earth....killing multitudes of Innocent people/animals....taking the latter?

Again, the worldwide flood seems to show that your god would choose to just kill everyone.

Are you suggesting that god suffers from stress? I mean, I know that he has a lot on his proverbial plate, but come on!

No, it would be much better to destroy the world you made "perfectly" and then remake it exactly the way you did the first time.  Unless, you are suggesting that sin, suffering and death have been eradicated, Gramps? 

As opposed to the perfect like we have now!  Thank god we are not in control!