By "creationist" I am referring to those who prescribe to a religious creation story; specifically, my question is targeted towards Christian creationists.
1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don't we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus? We can see with hominid fossils that they come from different eras, and it just happens that as the dates approach the present, they become more and more similar to us. It seems quite mightily convenient for Evolutionary Theory that we find a similar trend throughout every fossil hierarchy. It doesn't seem to fit with the Creationist stance that God created the animals at around the same time – why would they happen to exist in distinct eras with clear progressions from one set of fossils to the next?
2. I'd asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs. More specifically, why it happens that these vestigial organs happen to have had a purpose in earlier species Evolution predicts were ancestors. Why would a Creator give animals vestigial organs in such a manner that so conveniently lines up with Evolutionary theory? Is this Creator actively deceiving us? And even in organs that do serve a purpose, I'm sure any first year medical student could list numerous organs just in the human body that could be made orders of magnitude more efficient.
Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to "god works in mysterious ways", or rather "occam's razor can go fuck itself."
3. Why don't Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids? You'd think this would be a pretty major point, that there were once other intelligent beings, presumably also with souls. What happened to them?
4. Where are Creationism's testable predictions? It isn't falsifiable – it is based on no observations and is not applicable to any other field. Evolutionary Theory can be used to explain numerous phenomena in biology, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and animal science, while creationism is entirely self contained in that it makes no predictions and no observations.
5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology? How do you know God created Eve out of Adam's rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?
I would invite any civil/rational responses. Thank you.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 02:51:00 PM
By "creationist" I am referring to those who prescribe to a religious creation story; specifically, my question is targeted towards Christian creationists.
1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don't we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus? We can see with hominid fossils that they come from different eras, and it just happens that as the dates approach the present, they become more and more similar to us. It seems quite mightily convenient for Evolutionary Theory that we find a similar trend throughout every fossil hierarchy. It doesn't seem to fit with the Creationist stance that God created the animals at around the same time – why would they happen to exist in distinct eras with clear progressions from one set of fossils to the next?
2. I'd asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs. More specifically, why it happens that these vestigial organs happen to have had a purpose in earlier species Evolution predicts were ancestors. Why would a Creator give animals vestigial organs in such a manner that so conveniently lines up with Evolutionary theory? Is this Creator actively deceiving us? And even in organs that do serve a purpose, I'm sure any first year medical student could list numerous organs just in the human body that could be made orders of magnitude more efficient.
Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to "god works in mysterious ways", or rather "occam's razor can go fuck itself."
3. Why don't Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids? You'd think this would be a pretty major point, that there were once other intelligent beings, presumably also with souls. What happened to them?
4. Where are Creationism's testable predictions? It isn't falsifiable – it is based on no observations and is not applicable to any other field. Evolutionary Theory can be used to explain numerous phenomena in biology, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and animal science, while creationism is entirely self contained in that it makes no predictions and no observations.
5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology? How do you know God created Eve out of Adam's rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?
I would invite any civil/rational responses. Thank you.
I don't care to answer your inquiries by the numbers. Sorry if that perturbs you. (Oops! THAT was a lie!)
There's lots of room for varying theories. I'm not sure why you have to be so militantly on one side.
Evolution is a fact. My appendix is all the proof I need. But the question is: does evolution account for humankind?
And I have to say NO.
As closely as we have been identified with the great apes, they can't talk, they can't reason, they can't drive a car. They can't write a book. They can't build anything. They can't construct a society. The list of what they can't do is endless.
Your point about vestigial organs is just silliness. Many other species have what might be termed "vestigial organs." So what?
Your ridiculous questions about "Neanderthals" and such are just that -- ridiculous. You seem to assume, for example, that the Bible has to be a history book. The Holy Bible has been criticized in lots of ways, and modified a few times, but you might be the first guy to come along that asserts that it should be an account of history. It ain't. But you knew that already.
Your blather makes me tired.
Think of it this way. If what you believe to be so is so, how did you come by the ability to post your last post? Honestly, what are the chances you would have morphed out of the mud and become an accomplished typist and shared with us all your liberal/progressive wisdom without some sort of guidance?
What separates us from the critters is consciousness. It's the thing that makes a lot of other words possible -- sorry, tardy, silly, foolish, embarrassed, happy. This is just a shirt-cuff list, but if you take away consciousness, they all go away. They disappear like they were never there.
Please explain to me how the finest aspects of humanity evolved from the mud. Seriously, I'd love to see what you come up with.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 16, 2013, 03:39:38 PM
There's lots of room for varying theories. I'm not sure why you have to be so militantly on one side.
Why appeal to the golden mean here? I am "militantly" on the side that Julius Caesar existed, that 911 was not an inside job, that the Earth is round, and I don't feel the need to give credence to opposing viewpoints when there is no evidence to support them, as though science had to be politically correct.
Quote
Evolution is a fact. My appendix is all the proof I need. But the question is: does evolution account for humankind?
And I have to say NO.
Special pleading. Humans are animals of exceptional intelligence and emotional acuity; we still have many "animalistic" emotions and phenotypes. Feel free to otherwise dispute why we have so many vestigial organs and instinctive behaviors that make no sense in modern society. Evolution has an explanation; does your evolution-creation hybrid?
Quote
As closely as we have been identified with the great apes, they can't talk, they can't reason, they can't drive a car. They can't write a book. They can't build anything. They can't construct a society. The list of what they can't do is endless.
Yes, because they aren't as intelligent as we are. You think this means evolution cannot explain us? Some apes can learn basic sign language, while dogs cannot; does this mean evolution cannot explain apes? Dogs can understand human emotions, while insects cannot; does this mean evolution cannot explain dogs? What makes you think the jump to us is necessarily greater than the jump from bacteria to fish, which you seem to have no trouble accepting? Is your answer going to be another subjective praising of our consciousness and self awareness? Are you aware that both attributes are analogue, not discrete?
Quote
Your point about vestigial organs is just silliness. Many other species have what might be termed "vestigial organs." So what?
So, as you yourself agreed with, vestigial organs support Evolutionary Theory.
Quote
Your ridiculous questions about "Neanderthals" and such are just that -- ridiculous. You seem to assume, for example, that the Bible has to be a history book. The Holy Bible has been criticized in lots of ways, and modified a few times, but you might be the first guy to come along that asserts that it should be an account of history. It ain't. But you knew that already.
Genesis includes lots of historical information that is
less relevant than the existence of other intelligent hominids, which would fundamentally change the nature and extent of God's relationship with us. Technically not mentioning neanderthals doesn't contradict their existence; but it's clear that whoever wrote the book would have included such a groundbreaking detail if he knew of it.
That's like reading a centuries old textbook about medicine and disease and happening to forget to mention bacteria and viruses; you would conclude that the authors were ignorant about germ theory, not some mental gymnastics that they don't really have to mention it.
Quote
Your blather makes me tired.
I love how you respond to a perfectly civil set of questions with a smug, rude, arrogant reply (beyond its logical incoherency and fallacious arguments).
Quote
Think of it this way. If what you believe to be so is so, how did you come by the ability to post your last post?
Evolution by natural selection. Supported by scientific data, and not your gut feeling argument from personal incredibility. It's clear that you don't realize we have a pretty complete fossil record of the evolution of early hominids from Australopithecus to homo sapiens - if you think humans were created rather than evolved, feel free to explain homo habilis, homo erectus, homo ergaster, etc, and why they happen to exist in eras that chronologically approach our time as the fossils begin to more closely resemble that of homo sapiens. Huh.
Quote
Honestly, what are the chances you would have morphed out of the mud and become an accomplished typist and shared with us all your liberal/progressive wisdom without some sort of guidance?
You're not properly grasping the mathematics here. The odds of life appearing are very small; that's why out of quintillions of planets only at least one has been confirmed to have taken that leap. The odds of intelligent life appearing are small enough that only one species out of hundreds of millions is currently definitely sentient. Your question is akin to proclaiming that you cannot possibly win the lottery by chance.
And yet again, the fossil record and DNA analysis make it clear that our intelligent gradually developed over millions of years - where's the absurdity in that? And you somehow find it less absurd to postulate, in true God of the Gaps fashion, a divine creator -
whose own intelligence is even more difficult to explain.Quote
What separates us from the critters is consciousness. It's the thing that makes a lot of other words possible -- sorry, tardy, silly, foolish, embarrassed, happy. This is just a shirt-cuff list, but if you take away consciousness, they all go away. They disappear like they were never there.
Actually, studies have shown that animals can also feel such emotions, to a lesser degree of course. It's not a unique development - ours is just much broader.
Quote
Please explain to me how the finest aspects of humanity evolved from the mud. Seriously, I'd love to see what you come up with.
Unlike you, I'm basing my evidence on fossil records, radiocarbon dating and genetics, not an emotional, wishy-washy "we're so special your theory doesn't seem right to me". Your earlier miscalculation of statistics demonstrates that you don't have a very good understanding of math, let alone Evolutionary Theory. You don't even bother attacking the hard evidence; fossils, genetics, radiocarbon dating, beyond intuitive judgments in a very counter-intuitive field.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 02:51:00 PM
By "creationist" I am referring to those who prescribe to a religious creation story; specifically, my question is targeted towards Christian creationists.
1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don't we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus? We can see with hominid fossils that they come from different eras, and it just happens that as the dates approach the present, they become more and more similar to us. It seems quite mightily convenient for Evolutionary Theory that we find a similar trend throughout every fossil hierarchy. It doesn't seem to fit with the Creationist stance that God created the animals at around the same time – why would they happen to exist in distinct eras with clear progressions from one set of fossils to the next?
2. I'd asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs. More specifically, why it happens that these vestigial organs happen to have had a purpose in earlier species Evolution predicts were ancestors. Why would a Creator give animals vestigial organs in such a manner that so conveniently lines up with Evolutionary theory? Is this Creator actively deceiving us? And even in organs that do serve a purpose, I'm sure any first year medical student could list numerous organs just in the human body that could be made orders of magnitude more efficient.
Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to "god works in mysterious ways", or rather "occam's razor can go fuck itself."
3. Why don't Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids? You'd think this would be a pretty major point, that there were once other intelligent beings, presumably also with souls. What happened to them?
4. Where are Creationism's testable predictions? It isn't falsifiable – it is based on no observations and is not applicable to any other field. Evolutionary Theory can be used to explain numerous phenomena in biology, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and animal science, while creationism is entirely self contained in that it makes no predictions and no observations.
5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology? How do you know God created Eve out of Adam's rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?
I would invite any civil/rational responses. Thank you.
Can a non-religious creationist, like myself, get in on this?
Quote from: taxed on November 16, 2013, 10:25:12 PM
Can a non-religious creationist, like myself, get in on this?
Only if you promise to clean your boots when your done.
Quote from: taxed on November 16, 2013, 10:25:12 PM
Can a non-religious creationist, like myself, get in on this?
Sure. As long as you don't attack every one of my arguments for not properly representing your belief system, when it was obviously not directed at you.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:54:44 AM
Sure. As long as you don't attack every one of my arguments for not properly representing your belief system, when it was obviously not directed at you.
Don't worry, taxed. He'll never attack your belief systems or attempt to shred your logic. He'll treat you really nice, the way he treats me.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 11:15:59 AM
Don't worry, taxed. He'll never attack your belief systems or attempt to shred your logic. He'll treat you really nice, the way he treats me.
Funny that you think it's somehow unethical to "shred your logic".
I tremble in anticipation at your response. It must be brilliant, since you think you know something 99% of actual biologists, zoologists and geneticists do not. You know, those with thousands of hours of experience logged into study and research, compared to you, with your rebuttal being comprised of proclamations of your "gut feeling", warping of basic statistics and a lack of understanding of the scientific method?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:54:44 AM
Sure. As long as you don't attack every one of my arguments for not properly representing your belief system, when it was obviously not directed at you.
What is my belief system, since you know it already?
Quote from: taxed on November 23, 2013, 10:56:32 PM
What is my belief system, since you know it already?
I do not know. All I'm warning you is that I fine-tailored my arguments to address orthodox Christian creationism, not whatever your belief system is.
Now, I would genuinely be interested in seeing what rebuttal you have in store that 99% of biologists, zoologists and geneticists have missed. Or why the 72 Nobel prize winners who signed a petition to teach evolution in schools were mistaken. Of course I can't base my position on arguments from authority, so again, whenever it's convenient for you, fire away.
I just have to take a moment to commend you on your response to TBone. Was a bit mean and aggressive, but your points were spot on. It seems like most of the support for creationism is just fuzzy, feel good stuff. "Evolution just doesn't feel right..."
As good as it would make me feel to believe that the entire universe was created just for us, by an omnipotent supreme ruler of the universe whose image we're made in, I'm content accepting where the evidence leads, and I don't have to believe that my life is the most important thing in the universe in order to be happy and care about my life and the lives of others.
Quote from: grace_note on December 13, 2013, 08:57:16 AM
I just have to take a moment to commend you on your response to TBone. Was a bit mean and aggressive, but your points were spot on. It seems like most of the support for creationism is just fuzzy, feel good stuff. "Evolution just doesn't feel right..."
As good as it would make me feel to believe that the entire universe was created just for us, by an omnipotent supreme ruler of the universe whose image we're made in, I'm content accepting where the evidence leads, and I don't have to believe that my life is the most important thing in the universe in order to be happy and care about my life and the lives of others.
Welcome to the board. However, please use the quote function when responding to a post.
I'm sure there are plenty of articles here that can attempt to quell your curiosity: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9)
I have always doubted claims by fundamentalists that they really believe the Creation story is a scientific description of how the universe and humans came into being. I suspect that they see it as an allegory of how the universe was made - based on some reality ("Let there be light" sure sounds like the Big Bang to me) - but mostly designed to instruct us about our basic nature and to present a picture of our ideal self which should strive to return to.
But then politics and the culture wars happen. Atheists and anti-Judeo Christians attack the Creation story to attack all the contents in the Bible, and believers dig in around the Creation story as a bulwark against these attacks.
So declarations of beliefs in Creationism - as well as those atrocious Darwin fish on cars - become cultural markers in ones membership in the culture wars.
Quote from: Egg on December 18, 2013, 10:21:26 AM
I have always doubted claims by fundamentalists that they really believe the Creation story is a scientific description of how the universe and humans came into being.
I've lived near fundamentalists. Trust me; they actually believe in it. The talking snake, and everything.
I believe in both creationism and evolutionism. In a way, all of your questions are irrelevant to me, because evolution is part of creationism. Evolutionism is the mechanism upon with the creation plan worked.
How can I believe that? Simple, its how I view the Bible, upon which you based your questions. I view the Bible as inspired by God, written by man, put together by man.
I've never believed that it was seven days, as we know a day to be. Nothing states that it could not be longer (again, inspired by God, written by man, put together by man). As for your question about other sentient creatures, who is to say God cannot change his mind?
I find both sides to have their extreme fanatics which are, well, closed minded, and they have the same problem. They take the Bible literally.
Quote from: ConservativeMe on July 29, 2014, 08:43:26 AM
I believe in both creationism and evolutionism. In a way, all of your questions are irrelevant to me, because evolution is part of creationism. Evolutionism is the mechanism upon with the creation plan worked.
How can I believe that? Simple, its how I view the Bible, upon which you based your questions. I view the Bible as inspired by God, written by man, put together by man.
I've never believed that it was seven days, as we know a day to be. Nothing states that it could not be longer (again, inspired by God, written by man, put together by man). As for your question about other sentient creatures, who is to say God cannot change his mind?
I find both sides to have their extreme fanatics which are, well, closed minded, and they have the same problem. They take the Bible literally.
\
CM, please use the quote function so everyone knows to whom you're responding to.
Quote from: ConservativeMe on July 29, 2014, 08:43:26 AM
I believe in both creationism and evolutionism. In a way, all of your questions are irrelevant to me, because evolution is part of creationism. Evolutionism is the mechanism upon with the creation plan worked.
How can I believe that? Simple, its how I view the Bible, upon which you based your questions. I view the Bible as inspired by God, written by man, put together by man.
I've never believed that it was seven days, as we know a day to be. Nothing states that it could not be longer (again, inspired by God, written by man, put together by man). As for your question about other sentient creatures, who is to say God cannot change his mind?
I find both sides to have their extreme fanatics which are, well, closed minded, and they have the same problem. They take the Bible literally.
Excellent observation and I agree. God is infinite and timeless to me. Therefore, man cannot comprehend how we are where we are at this point. Recorded history began with man's ability to document events. How time has been recorded has obviously changed. However, those without faith cannot comprehend the beliefs of believers.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 09:41:24 PM
I've lived near fundamentalists. Trust me; they actually believe in it. The talking snake, and everything.
Yes, and I even believe in the occasional talking ass (Numbers 22).
The "snake" was how Satan manifested himself to the first Humans in whom God placed the Spirit of Man. As usual, you misrepresent the beliefs of those you'd like to discredit.
Your other tactic (commonly practiced by the God-Haters) is to throw up an entire list of "questions" or "concerns" so you have wiggle room. If you're sincere, ask ONE question per post so they can be thrashed out properly. Of course you're not interested in honest debate, but only ridiculing things you refuse to understand.
Quote from: carlb on August 02, 2014, 02:48:47 PM
Yes, and I even believe in the occasional talking ass (Numbers 22).
The "snake" was how Satan manifested himself to the first Humans in whom God placed the Spirit of Man. As usual, you misrepresent the beliefs of those you'd like to discredit.
Your other tactic (commonly practiced by the God-Haters) is to throw up an entire list of "questions" or "concerns" so you have wiggle room. If you're sincere, ask ONE question per post so they can be thrashed out properly. Of course you're not interested in honest debate, but only ridiculing things you refuse to understand.
I'll ask just
one question.
If god is all powerful can he make a rock so large that he, himself, cannot lift it? :rolleyes:
-Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 08, 2014, 04:26:16 PM
I'll ask just one question.
If god is all powerful can he make a rock so large that he, himself, cannot lift it? :rolleyes:
-Darth
The omnipotence paradox, nothing is impossible and everything is possible with God, and his understanding is beyond measure, which means that we can't comprehend him so our own hypothetical contradictions and paradoxes are irrelevant in the context of God's existence and is just a entertaining linguistic exercise, not a real scenario.
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 08, 2014, 04:26:16 PM
I'll ask just one question.
If god is all powerful can he make a rock so large that he, himself, cannot lift it? :rolleyes:
-Darth
I learned at a very young age, that it is people that go around doing stupid things. Even at my age people are doing stupid things. :lol:
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 08, 2014, 04:26:16 PM
I'll ask just one question.
If god is all powerful can he make a rock so large that he, himself, cannot lift it? :rolleyes:
-Darth
Why are you asking questions afforded 5 year olds?
Go ask a 9 year old, they'll wonder why you think like a five year old too.
Seriously, don't try and view this through your bias and hatred or limitations over your view of the ethereal , but simply ask yourself that very question, of something wielding such infinite power.
You stifle your understanding of life beyond the human experience, simply by all the limitations placed upon you as a mere human.
If you understood or had all the answers to life, you would see no reason to continue it's path laid out before you, the gift of life is our quest in understanding it's, and our purpose.
It's the very reason people have faith that something more powerful and wiser exists, could even create the sphere in which we exist, because God knows, man is incapable of creating such wonder.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 09, 2014, 02:18:23 AM
The omnipotence paradox, nothing is impossible and everything is possible with God, and his understanding is beyond measure, which means that we can't comprehend him so our own hypothetical contradictions and paradoxes are irrelevant in the context of God's existence and is just a entertaining linguistic exercise, not a real scenario.
And we know this because...
...other men have written books that tell us so. :rolleyes:
-Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 09, 2014, 08:00:17 AM
And we know this because...
...other men have written books that tell us so. :rolleyes:
-Darth
I see you were typing while I was posting, and assume you missed my post.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 08:46:31 AM
I see you were typing while I was posting, and assume you missed my post.
Okay, here is the same question asked with a little more sophistication.
You posit that God created the universe and all that is in it. That means that God created the laws which govern that universe. Question: Can God violate the laws which govern the universe which he created?
And here is one for the Evolution/Science Deniers out there.
One of the arguments used by Evolution Deniers is that changing of one species into another has not been observed in modern time, i.e. a lion has always been a lion, and an elephant has always been an elephant for all of recorded history. For Evolution to be vaild, they claim, it must be an ongoing process.
Fair enough.
So, let me ask all of you theist out there.
Does God still speak to his "chosen" people today, either directly or through "prophets"? If not, why not?
The point I'm getting at is this. Most Christian discount the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as nothing more than a "cult" religion started by a 19th Century charlatan. Oh, many, if not most, Christian tolerate the Mormons, but very few think they are truly Christians.
And yet, the founding of the LDS church and the persecutions they faced over the past 150 years is very analogous to that of the early Christian Church.
What makes Christians so damned sure that God didn't decide that mainstream Christianity had drifted away from the true course Christ had set for it, and so he decided to raise up a prophet in the name of Joseph Smith to do a disc format and reboot of Christianity?
-Darth
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 02:51:00 PM
By "creationist" I am referring to those who prescribe to a religious creation story; specifically, my question is targeted towards Christian creationists.
1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don't we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus? We can see with hominid fossils that they come from different eras, and it just happens that as the dates approach the present, they become more and more similar to us. It seems quite mightily convenient for Evolutionary Theory that we find a similar trend throughout every fossil hierarchy. It doesn't seem to fit with the Creationist stance that God created the animals at around the same time – why would they happen to exist in distinct eras with clear progressions from one set of fossils to the next?
Answer: On the geological scale, or in other words in the grand scheme of things so to speak, ALL the species evolved in a very very short amount of time. Remember the entire Universe is about thirteen Billion years old, according to non-creationist cosmologists themselves. With again according to those same non-creationist scientists, our own sun, and our own planet being somewhere between four to four and a half billion years old.
When seen in that scale we along with all the animal life that has ever existed on Earth, which has only existed on Earth for a couple of hundred million years, (according again to non-creationist scientists) did "evolve" or were created, in a very very short amount of time.
2. I'd asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs. More specifically, why it happens that these vestigial organs happen to have had a purpose in earlier species Evolution predicts were ancestors. Why would a Creator give animals vestigial organs in such a manner that so conveniently lines up with Evolutionary theory? Is this Creator actively deceiving us? And even in organs that do serve a purpose, I'm sure any first year medical student could list numerous organs just in the human body that could be made orders of magnitude more efficient.
Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to "god works in mysterious ways", or rather "occam's razor can go fuck itself."
If you read the Genesis account you find that God created Human beings to be just that. Hunter Gatherers. Not farmers or agriculturalists as we as a species largely are today. Especially, post, expulsion.
3. Why don't Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids? You'd think this would be a pretty major point, that there were once other intelligent beings, presumably also with souls. What happened to them?
The Bible (Judeo-Christian) Scripture makes mention of several different types of sentient life out there in the creation. See Cherubim, Seraphim, Nephilim for example.
4. Where are Creationism's testable predictions? It isn't falsifiable – it is based on no observations and is not applicable to any other field. Evolutionary Theory can be used to explain numerous phenomena in biology, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and animal science, while creationism is entirely self contained in that it makes no predictions and no observations.
Wrong again, not only are the scriptures chock full of "observations" about the nature of man, and our interaction with the creator. Which is the primary focus of the book as it is NOT meant to be a geology or astronomy text for example. And it contrary to your assertion, does in fact time and time again make "predictions" many of which can be, have been, and are absolutely "testable" and indeed proven.
See Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the city of Tyr, and then the archeological evidence of what actually happened to that city for example.
5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology? How do you know God created Eve out of Adam's rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?
I would invite any civil/rational responses. Thank you.
The scripture doesn't say God created plants before the stars. You ask for a civil/rational reply, yet have made anyone of a number of fallacious, and ill informed assertions already. Such as for example your assertion that the scripture makes no observations, nor predictions. Or the assertion that it makes no mention of other sentient life. To have such a polite and rationale "conversation" with you, you'll first have to do quite a bit more study of those scriptures first so you know what it is you are actually talking about. As given the aforementioned assertions for example, it's obvious you know very little about the creation story/myth/belief as described within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 09, 2014, 12:34:19 PM
Okay, here is the same question asked with a little more sophistication.
You posit that God created the universe and all that is in it. That means that God created the laws which govern that universe. Question: Can God violate the laws which govern the universe which he created?
Your very premise stifles your understanding, you are viewing God in mans simplest of terms.
Everything you see around you, does not exist when attempting to understand God in God's realm.
God is not a man.
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 09, 2014, 12:34:19 PM
Okay, here is the same question asked with a little more sophistication.
You posit that God created the universe and all that is in it. That means that God created the laws which govern that universe. Question: Can God violate the laws which govern the universe which he created?
And here is one for the Evolution/Science Deniers out there.
One of the arguments used by Evolution Deniers is that changing of one species into another has not been observed in modern time, i.e. a lion has always been a lion, and an elephant has always been an elephant for all of recorded history. For Evolution to be vaild, they claim, it must be an ongoing process.
Fair enough.
So, let me ask all of you theist out there.
Does God still speak to his "chosen" people today, either directly or through "prophets"? If not, why not?
The point I'm getting at is this. Most Christian discount the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as nothing more than a "cult" religion started by a 19th Century charlatan. Oh, many, if not most, Christian tolerate the Mormons, but very few think they are truly Christians.
And yet, the founding of the LDS church and the persecutions they faced over the past 150 years is very analogous to that of the early Christian Church.
What makes Christians so damned sure that God didn't decide that mainstream Christianity had drifted away from the true course Christ had set for it, and so he decided to raise up a prophet in the name of Joseph Smith to do a disc format and reboot of Christianity?
-Darth
That's not at all the same question because the first paradox placed limitations on God while the second simply adks if He can violate the natural laws He created. The answer to that is yes. We call them miracles. They don't happen often because if He intervened often, they would cease to be miracles and instead become the norm or the new natural laws.
The other bit about the Mormons is simply an attack and divide tactic to pit one branch of Christianity against the other. Sure, there are plenty of people on both sides of the Mormon debate but dragging it in here serves no other purpose than a thinly veiled attempt to hope to ruffle feathers and further divide Christians based on denomination.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 02:51:00 PM
By "creationist" I am referring to those who prescribe to a religious creation story; specifically, my question is targeted towards Christian creationists.
1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don't we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus? We can see with hominid fossils that they come from different eras, and it just happens that as the dates approach the present, they become more and more similar to us. It seems quite mightily convenient for Evolutionary Theory that we find a similar trend throughout every fossil hierarchy. It doesn't seem to fit with the Creationist stance that God created the animals at around the same time – why would they happen to exist in distinct eras with clear progressions from one set of fossils to the next?
2. I'd asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs. More specifically, why it happens that these vestigial organs happen to have had a purpose in earlier species Evolution predicts were ancestors. Why would a Creator give animals vestigial organs in such a manner that so conveniently lines up with Evolutionary theory? Is this Creator actively deceiving us? And even in organs that do serve a purpose, I'm sure any first year medical student could list numerous organs just in the human body that could be made orders of magnitude more efficient.
Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to "god works in mysterious ways", or rather "occam's razor can go fuck itself."
3. Why don't Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids? You'd think this would be a pretty major point, that there were once other intelligent beings, presumably also with souls. What happened to them?
4. Where are Creationism's testable predictions? It isn't falsifiable – it is based on no observations and is not applicable to any other field. Evolutionary Theory can be used to explain numerous phenomena in biology, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and animal science, while creationism is entirely self contained in that it makes no predictions and no observations.
5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology? How do you know God created Eve out of Adam's rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?
I would invite any civil/rational responses. Thank you.
All of your questions are based on the assumption that the man-made concept of time is the same as God's time. When God first created the Earth, it was shapeless. It wasn't round with 24 hour days as weknow today. A "God day" could have been 10,000,000,000 years for all we know. Elsewhere in the Bible, it mentions that our lives are like a small vapor in the grand scheme of things. Well, vapors last about a second and guven that the average lifespan is about 75 years (currently), that gives furtger evidence that God is not on human time. In addition, God created animals before humans, it seems that God time may have allowed for certain evolutionary processes to take place.
I have three questions for you. Do you understand the difference between evolution and adaptation? Can you explain evolution on a microbiological level? Specifically, address how individual cells can mutate to give rise to complex systems such as the human eye. If one component of the human eye is missing, the whole system fails to work. So how did it develop? With a lens? A useless lens without a retina or the approximately 40 chemicals necessary to make it work? Explain complex systems such as this, please.
Last question: as a neuropsychologist (done with coursework for doctrate, simply awaiting to finish myinternship), I am intrigued by your statement that neurological and psychological evudence contradicts any creationist worldview. Can you elaborate on that?
Quote from: daidalos on August 09, 2014, 03:49:00 PM
Answer: On the geological scale, or in other words in the grand scheme of things so to speak, ALL the species evolved in a very very short amount of time. Remember the entire Universe is about thirteen Billion years old, according to non-creationist cosmologists themselves. With again according to those same non-creationist scientists, our own sun, and our own planet being somewhere between four to four and a half billion years old.
When seen in that scale we along with all the animal life that has ever existed on Earth, which has only existed on Earth for a couple of hundred million years, (according again to non-creationist scientists) did "evolve" or were created, in a very very short amount of time.
"Daidalos", this literally does absolutely nothing to answer the question in any way, shape or form. :huh:
Quote
If you read the Genesis account you find that God created Human beings to be just that. Hunter Gatherers. Not farmers or agriculturalists as we as a species largely are today. Especially, post, expulsion.
You completely ignored the part about the vestigial organs. Indeed, you cherry picked a portion of one of the two paragraphs and never bothered to address the point, which is that the makeup of known animals just happens to match the predictions of Evolutionary Theory.
Quote
The Bible (Judeo-Christian) Scripture makes mention of several different types of sentient life out there in the creation. See Cherubim, Seraphim, Nephilim for example.
Are you seriously trying to claim that descriptions of winged angelic beasts accurately predicts the existence of Neanderthal and erectus fossils? The two aren't similar at all - Genesis failed utterly to mention them, yet evolutionary theory predicts their existence, and so it obviously has greater predictive power, and so it is clearly a better theory.
QuoteWrong again, not only are the scriptures chock full of "observations" about the nature of man, and our interaction with the creator.
No, it is not. Any non-trivial predictions about human nature happen to be post-ad-hoc rationalizations. Case study: after the big bang theory became accepted science, some theologians tried to claim that Genesis suggested just that when it described God's stretching out the Cosmos. But it's piss easy to do post-ad-hoc vague handwaviums like that; psychics and astrologists make a living on it. Real science has the ability to make specific, accurate predictions, not vague philosophical generalities.
Quote
Which is the primary focus of the book as it is NOT meant to be a geology or astronomy text for example.
I am addressing creationists, and creationists obviously do think the Bible is a geology and astronomy text, because they reject the scientific alternatives.
QuoteAnd it contrary to your assertion, does in fact time and time again make "predictions" many of which can be, have been, and are absolutely "testable" and indeed proven.
Uh huh. Please name them.
Quote
See Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the city of Tyr, and then the archeological evidence of what actually happened to that city for example.
What the fuck does this have to do with creationism, again?
Quote
The scripture doesn't say God created plants before the stars. You ask for a civil/rational reply, yet have made anyone of a number of fallacious, and ill informed assertions already. Such as for example your assertion that the scripture makes no observations, nor predictions. Or the assertion that it makes no mention of other sentient life. To have such a polite and rationale "conversation" with you, you'll first have to do quite a bit more study of those scriptures first so you know what it is you are actually talking about. As given the aforementioned assertions for example, it's obvious you know very little about the creation story/myth/belief as described within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
Cutting through the 75% of this paragraph where you state emphatically that I am wrong and flawed and yet only devote a small amount of text to actually explaining how, you seem to think that mention of
ANGELIC BEASTS is somehow a prediction of Neanderthal remains, and deny that the Scripture claims God created the plants before the stars when, you know, it clearly says that. But more to the point, I'd be interested in seeing these observations and predictions the Bible made that you have alluded to but conveniently failed to actually describe, and your Grand Finale where you explain how any of this defends creationism or opposes evolution at all.
Quote from: Dr. Meh on August 09, 2014, 06:09:50 PM
All of your questions are based on the assumption that the man-made concept of time is the same as God's time.
When God first created the Earth, it was shapeless. It wasn't round with 24 hour days as weknow today. A "God day" could have been 10,000,000,000 years for all we know.
OK...what does this have to do with anything I've said? None of my arguments are predicated on a literal 6 day creation myth.
Quote
Elsewhere in the Bible, it mentions that our lives are like a small vapor in the grand scheme of things. Well, vapors last about a second and guven that the average lifespan is about 75 years (currently), that gives furtger evidence that God is not on human time. In addition, God created animals before humans, it seems that God time may have allowed for certain evolutionary processes to take place.
If you're acknowledging evolution, why are you even arguing with me? And again, how does anything that you're saying here have anything to do with the text you were quoting?
Quote
I have three questions for you. Do you understand the difference between evolution and adaptation? Can you explain evolution on a microbiological level? Specifically, address how individual cells can mutate to give rise to complex systems such as the human eye. If one component of the human eye is missing, the whole system fails to work. So how did it develop? With a lens? A useless lens without a retina or the approximately 40 chemicals necessary to make it work? Explain complex systems such as this, please.
Over hundreds of millions of years, your "it's too complicated to arise!" argument falls flat to the enormity of the
time natural selection has to get it right. Mind you, if you are a creationist, you may want to explain the existence of vestigial eyes in various mole species, or the fact that the eye is actually a very vulnerable and imperfect organ. Evolutionary theory not only allows for these observations, but actually
predicts them, whereas creationism needs to undergo post ad-hoc rationalizations and clever infalsifiable loops such as "the lord works in mysterious ways!"
Your entire argument, once you actually got to saying it, is to point out that evolutionary biologists have not exactly described the evolution of every possible adaptation, and so the whole theory must be flawed. But that's absurd - by that logic, because the inhabitants of Hiroshima couldn't have calculated the exact radiation flux of the atomic bomb dropped on them, they could not have concluded that they just had an atom bomb dropped on them. The vast fossil record, vestigial traits, DNA similarities and other features can
only be explained by Darwinian evolution, and it's interesting that you completely ignore all of the actual questions I was asking to point out this fact.
Quote
Last question: as a neuropsychologist (done with coursework for doctrate, simply awaiting to finish myinternship), I am intrigued by your statement that neurological and psychological evudence contradicts any creationist worldview. Can you elaborate on that?
It's funny that you ask that, since I made no such claim, and you are having a hard time understanding the difference between pointing out that creationism makes no predictions and claiming that it makes false predictions. Creationism has made numerous false predictions, but after the evidence overwhelms it, it just changes its mind with the convenient luxury of being ill-defined.
I have been reading and trying to keep up with the various arguments, so this does not have a quote from anything in particular, but I do have a question for sci fi, are you trying to prove that the theory of evolution is fact ?, or are you trying to prove that God does not exist?
Quote from: s3779m on August 21, 2014, 04:07:47 AM
I have been reading and trying to keep up with the various arguments, so this does not have a quote from anything in particular, but I do have a question for sci fi, are you trying to prove that the theory of evolution is fact ?, or are you trying to prove that God does not exist?
:biggrin:
The woman is a complete screwball. If the argument starts out with her claiming there is no God, and you wind up agreeing with her, she will then argue that you are wrong, God does exist.
She' the epitome of insanity.
Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 05:15:01 AM
:biggrin:
The woman is a complete screwball. If the argument starts out with her claiming there is no God, and you wind up agreeing with her, she will then argue that you are wrong, God does exist.
She' the epitome of insanity.
Plus, she's banned and won'tbe answering his question. At least not until she starts a new account.
Wow!
Now I know how Luke Skywalker felt in that cave on Dagobah!
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 09, 2014, 12:34:19 PM
Okay, here is the same question asked with a little more sophistication.
You posit that God created the universe and all that is in it. That means that God created the laws which govern that universe. Question: Can God violate the laws which govern the universe which he created?
And here is one for the Evolution/Science Deniers out there.
One of the arguments used by Evolution Deniers is that changing of one species into another has not been observed in modern time, i.e. a lion has always been a lion, and an elephant has always been an elephant for all of recorded history. For Evolution to be vaild, they claim, it must be an ongoing process.
My position now is that evolution exists, because God created it! And, of course, anything he makes, he can unmake.
Obviously, if the Universe began with the Big Bang, someone had to light the fuse...
QuoteFair enough.
So, let me ask all of you theist out there.
Does God still speak to his "chosen" people today, either directly or through "prophets"? If not, why not?
The point I'm getting at is this. Most Christian discount the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as nothing more than a "cult" religion started by a 19th Century charlatan. Oh, many, if not most, Christian tolerate the Mormons, but very few think they are truly Christians.
And yet, the founding of the LDS church and the persecutions they faced over the past 150 years is very analogous to that of the early Christian Church.
What makes Christians so damned sure that God didn't decide that mainstream Christianity had drifted away from the true course Christ had set for it, and so he decided to raise up a prophet in the name of Joseph Smith to do a disc format and reboot of Christianity?
I believe that it is not beyond plausible that God does continues to interact with humanity, sometimes on a broad level and sometimes on a personal level.
I believe he still, from time to time, calls individuals to be his messengers - prophets if you will. But there are not nearly as many as there are that claim to be!
Finally, the Bible story of Creation is simply a story, possibly inspired by God, to teach lessons of morality and obedience and the consequences of immorality and disobedience to a given group of people. All peoples of this Earth have their own Creation myth and nearly all serve the same purpose - to teach their people!
Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 15, 2014, 05:07:43 PM
Wow!
Now I know how Luke Skywalker felt in that cave on Dagobah!
My position now is that evolution exists, because God created it! And, of course, anything he makes, he can unmake.
Obviously, if the Universe began with the Big Bang, someone had to light the fuse...
I believe that it is not beyond plausible that God does continues to interact with humanity, sometimes on a broad level and sometimes on a personal level.
I believe he still, from time to time, calls individuals to be his messengers - prophets if you will. But there are not nearly as many as there are that claim to be!
Finally, the Bible story of Creation is simply a story, possibly inspired by God, to teach lessons of morality and obedience and the consequences of immorality and disobedience to a given group of people. All peoples of this Earth have their own Creation myth and nearly all serve the same purpose - to teach their people!
Darth
On subject, what do you think about this?:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/science-and-technology/the-atacama-humanoid/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/science-and-technology/the-atacama-humanoid/)
Quote from: taxed on November 15, 2014, 05:27:51 PM
On subject, what do you think about this?:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/science-and-technology/the-atacama-humanoid/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/science-and-technology/the-atacama-humanoid/)
I'll address this on the thread you linked to.
Darth
The day Creationists actually produce real falsifiable evidence about their claims that can be actually tested using the scientific method, and not just straw man arguments and appeals to faith, perhaps I'll pause to discuss this topic with them. Until then, why waste our time with it?
Quote from: Skeptic on November 16, 2014, 12:49:38 PM
The day Creationists actually produce real falsifiable evidence about their claims that can be actually tested using the scientific method, and not just straw man arguments and appeals to faith, perhaps I'll pause to discuss this topic with them. Until then, why waste our time with it?
Isn't that what you just did?
:huh:
Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 16, 2014, 01:12:34 PM
Isn't that what you just did?
:huh:
Darth
Not to mention the time he wasted coming up with his cliche avatar. He's obsessed with the religion of atheism.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 02:51:00 PM
By "creationist" I am referring to those who prescribe to a religious creation story; specifically, my question is targeted towards Christian creationists.
1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don't we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus? We can see with hominid fossils that they come from different eras, and it just happens that as the dates approach the present, they become more and more similar to us. It seems quite mightily convenient for Evolutionary Theory that we find a similar trend throughout every fossil hierarchy. It doesn't seem to fit with the Creationist stance that God created the animals at around the same time – why would they happen to exist in distinct eras with clear progressions from one set of fossils to the next?
2. I'd asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs. More specifically, why it happens that these vestigial organs happen to have had a purpose in earlier species Evolution predicts were ancestors. Why would a Creator give animals vestigial organs in such a manner that so conveniently lines up with Evolutionary theory? Is this Creator actively deceiving us? And even in organs that do serve a purpose, I'm sure any first year medical student could list numerous organs just in the human body that could be made orders of magnitude more efficient.
Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to "god works in mysterious ways", or rather "occam's razor can go fuck itself."
3. Why don't Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids? You'd think this would be a pretty major point, that there were once other intelligent beings, presumably also with souls. What happened to them?
4. Where are Creationism's testable predictions? It isn't falsifiable – it is based on no observations and is not applicable to any other field. Evolutionary Theory can be used to explain numerous phenomena in biology, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and animal science, while creationism is entirely self contained in that it makes no predictions and no observations.
5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology? How do you know God created Eve out of Adam's rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?
I would invite any civil/rational responses. Thank you.
There are three earth ages. A fact that many so called Christian scholars overlook. They say that this world is only 6000 years old. What they miss is that this age is only 6000 years old. There was an age before this one. It was the age when Lucifer rebelled against God and took the fallen angels with him.
I believe the bones that have been found that science claims are early humans were just an extict species of monkey's. I believe that man,in the flesh,has always looked just as we look. The fact is that over 90% of all creatures created have gone extict. They are no longer here. It's not because they evolved in to something different. They just went away. Survival of the fittest,so to speak.
Quote from: Rasputttin on December 05, 2014, 07:20:19 PM
There are three earth ages. A fact that many so called Christian scholars overlook. They say that this world is only 6000 years old. What they miss is that this age is only 6000 years old. There was an age before this one. It was the age when Lucifer rebelled against God and took the fallen angels with him.
I believe the bones that have been found that science claims are early humans were just an extict species of monkey's. I believe that man,in the flesh,has always looked just as we look. The fact is that over 90% of all creatures created have gone extict. They are no longer here. It's not because they evolved in to something different. They just went away. Survival of the fittest,so to speak.
The specie you refer to as monkey was Neanderthal, a species DNA we all share today, with the exception of Africans.
Are you claiming man screwed monkeys?
Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2014, 07:56:12 PM
The specie you refer to as monkey was Neanderthal, a species DNA we all share today, with the exception of Africans.
Are you claiming man screwed monkeys?
Well, I have no doubt that the history of man includes a few men who have banged a few primates, but I don't think they have reproduced.
Science says that we share much in common with monkeys today,even geneticly. The fact that we have genetic similarities with so called neandrathals isn't that strange.
We have genetic similarities with many mammals. The fact is it is a matter of faith. Science,as a study,is about facts and data. That doesn't mean scientists themselves care about truth. The global warming debate should tell you much about modern day scientists. Even if science itself has no agenda that doesn't mean some scientists don't. They are just humans like the rest of us flawed. The bible has been right about so many things,things that can not be explained, that I am not willing to let a few scientists dismiss it all with their genetic claims.
There are fossils from long ago that look just like the creature that exists today. It hasn't evolved one bit. There are fossils of things we do not see today. It's because they no longer exist. Why do you put trust in an industry that has shown itself for who they are.
Quote from: Rasputttin on December 05, 2014, 08:25:55 PM
Well, I have no doubt that the history of man includes a few men who have banged a few primates, but I don't think they have reproduced.
Science says that we share much in common with monkeys today,even geneticly. The fact that we have genetic similarities with so called neandrathals isn't that strange.
We have genetic similarities with many mammals. The fact is it is a matter of faith. Science,as a study,is about facts and data. That doesn't mean scientists themselves care about truth. The global warming debate should tell you much about modern day scientists. Even if science itself has no agenda that doesn't mean some scientists don't. They are just humans like the rest of us flawed. The bible has been right about so many things,things that can not be explained, that I am not willing to let a few scientists dismiss it all with their genetic claims.
There are fossils from long ago that look just like the creature that exists today. It hasn't evolved one bit. There are fossils of things we do not see today. It's because they no longer exist. Why do you put trust in an industry that has shown itself for who they are.
Some of my favorite science comes from the oldest book of the Bible, the book of Job.
Job, an awesome prophet speaks amazing things about God, creation, and an amazing understanding of planet Earth.
Chapter 26 is astonishing! In verse 7 the concept of "north" is established as it would mathematically relate to spherical values. This verse also illustrates a "suspended" earth in space.
Verse 10 is also incredible. It again clearly illustrates a "spherical" earth, being half illuminated by the sun while the other half would be in darkness during rotation. It obviously references the boundaries of where sunlight meets darkness. Here, a "circular" horizon is explicitly described!
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; [He] hangs the earth on nothing.
Job 26:8 He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
Job 26:9 He covers the face of [His] throne,[And] spreads His cloud over it.
Job 26:10 He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness.
Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble, And are astonished at His rebuke.
Job 26:12 He stirs up the sea with His power, And by His understanding He breaks up the storm.
Job 26:13 By His Spirit He adorned the heavens; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent.
Job 26:14 Indeed these [are] the mere edges of His ways, And how small a whisper we hear of Him! But the thunder of His power who can understand?"
These are divine provisions of knowledge given to God's prophet in ancient history, centuries prior to the birth of our Lord.
A God capable of these things also loves us. Amazing! I pray his blessings find you and all in your house!
Quote from: ORIGINAL WILLARD on December 05, 2014, 10:17:18 PM
Chapter 26 is astonishing! In verse 7 the concept of "north" is established as it would mathematically relate to spherical values. This verse also illustrates a "suspended" earth in space.
Yes Job is awesome. Funny how they claim we are the "flat earthers" when there is nothing in God's Word that even implies the earth is flat.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 16, 2013, 03:39:38 PM
I don't care to answer your inquiries by the numbers. Sorry if that perturbs you. (Oops! THAT was a lie!)
There's lots of room for varying theories. I'm not sure why you have to be so militantly on one side.
Evolution is a fact. My appendix is all the proof I need. But the question is: does evolution account for humankind?
And I have to say NO.
As closely as we have been identified with the great apes, they can't talk, they can't reason, they can't drive a car. They can't write a book. They can't build anything. They can't construct a society. The list of what they can't do is endless.
Your point about vestigial organs is just silliness. Many other species have what might be termed "vestigial organs." So what?
Your ridiculous questions about "Neanderthals" and such are just that -- ridiculous. You seem to assume, for example, that the Bible has to be a history book. The Holy Bible has been criticized in lots of ways, and modified a few times, but you might be the first guy to come along that asserts that it should be an account of history. It ain't. But you knew that already.
Your blather makes me tired.
Think of it this way. If what you believe to be so is so, how did you come by the ability to post your last post? Honestly, what are the chances you would have morphed out of the mud and become an accomplished typist and shared with us all your liberal/progressive wisdom without some sort of guidance?
What separates us from the critters is consciousness. It's the thing that makes a lot of other words possible -- sorry, tardy, silly, foolish, embarrassed, happy. This is just a shirt-cuff list, but if you take away consciousness, they all go away. They disappear like they were never there.
Please explain to me how the finest aspects of humanity evolved from the mud. Seriously, I'd love to see what you come up with.
What vestigial organ's would they be talking about? The appendix? Wrong, that organ has, and does serve a purpose.
The fact you can live without it doesn't mean it's vestigial, anymore than the fact you can live with only one lung, one kidney, that doesn't mean one of your lungs or kidney's are vestigial though.
Evolutionists like to claim "vestigial organs", but the fact is what we once medically and scientifically didn't know, led us to think some organs like the appendix, were "vestigial".
Left over from some earlier time, having no real purpose today.
We now know, what Darwin and his fellow evolutionists did not, that there is a reason and a function for every organ in the Human body.
Yes in nature some things do evolve, understanding for instance "evolves".
But as for "vestigial organs" well, lets just say that Our science and medical know how, have "evolved" to know that not to be the case. https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans/
Quote from: daidalos on December 10, 2014, 11:42:32 AM
Evolutionists like to claim "vestigial organs", but the fact is what we once medically and scientifically didn't know, led us to think some organs like the appendix, were "vestigial".
Left over from some earlier time, having no real purpose today.
Kind of like brains, in Liberals...
Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 12, 2014, 01:14:37 PM
Kind of like brains, in Liberals...
Darth
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: