Just Accidental?

Deeje · Nov 24, 2016

Watchmen said:
And with that, you demonstrate you don't really know. Would you like to learn?

Would you like to learn that what you have been fed is actually the result of smoke and mirrors and no actual evidence? Evolution is a fabrication fed to the masses by men with degrees, with nothing more than wishful thinking and some nifty diagrams holding it together.

This air of superiority in evolution supporters makes me smile......you really think we don't understand what evolution teaches?
Do you understand that the whole evolutionary theory is based on nothing more than educated guesswork and a bunch of bones that no one can connect by anything but conjecture and suggestion? The fossils are made to speak the language of the scientists because they have no voice of their own.

Are we all related? Well, if we are all made from the same basic raw materials, by the same Creator, then that is as plausible as guessing what "might have" happened because someone "suggested" that it "could have" taken place that way millions of years ago. Since nobody was there to document the process we are told that we must believe these men because they have science degrees?

Evolution has no more "scientific" proof of its veracity than ID has. I can't produce irrefutable evidence for my Creator any more than you can produce irrefutable evidence that there ever was a chain of evolutionary descent in any creature who has ever lived.

Finding different species of the same "kinds" of creature in different rock strata and assuming a chain of descent is not the same as providing proof of your assumption. Science does not have that proof. The fossils are strung together with nothing more than educated guesses and really good graphics.

You treat the notion of a Creator as a fairy story whilst promoting one of your own. Life just "poofed" itself into existence and then miraculously transformed itself into all the living species on this planet including man....with no intelligent direction whatsoever......now, that sounds plausible to you? It sounds ludicrous to me.

Sapiens · Nov 24, 2016

PeteC-UK said:
Hi Folks...

Milton; The "evidence" is indeed SELF EVIDENT lol....Just pay attenti to the world out there and pay attention to your own SELF and it will become obvious

In ALL phenomena ANYWHERE - there are ONLY two elements - energy that is now in some kind of "pattern" that we call a phenomena in the solid world - and there is a MIND that REALISES what that energy is being - strip away all the material layers to the created worlds - solid becomes molecular becomes atomic becomes sub atomic and then CEASES TO EXIST in any PHYSICAL way at all and becomes purely an ABSTRACT FORCE with no material componant at all..Energy does NOT exist - it is an IMAGINERY CONCEPT - prove me wrong if you can....

And the ONLY way possible to realise ANY of that (any phenomena ) at all is to have a PRESENCE OF MIND - for it IS mind that is the actual FACULTY that allows COMPREHENSION of the existance - yes..?? - and if you took that mind away from the universe then the universe COULD NOT EXIST as understand it IS the mind that DEFINED the existance, yes..??....

So remove the mind element - and tell me now if you can - WHO is there to experience this existance..??...WHAT is there that KNOWS it exists..??....NOTHING - for mind is absent and so there is NO EXISTANCE REALISED AT ALL.....Existance itself IS THE DOMAIN OF MIND and ONLY mind - you simply can not know or comprehend ANY existance WITHOUT that MIND - can you..??..

So - you may call it rambling - but it is accurate and universal nonetheless - without exception there is ALWAYS this energy of creation and the MIND that recognises that existance..They ARE inseperable - without the MIND there is only POSSIBILITY - the mind quite literally DEFINES the reality and it is ALL a PERSPECTIVE OF SELF that determines the reality you directly expereince...Of course - it becomes easy to understand this once we have actually stepped outside the body a few times and realised directly that we are indeed the Mind and NOT the physical body - once you have directly experienced the Self as NOTHING BUT ENERGY - purely abstract formless Conscious Awareness - then and only then I guess can you truly appreciate this truth - Gnosis is always the best guide

There were more ill or undefined terms and more unsupported claims in this post then I've seen in one place in a coon's age. Its like every sentence was produced by that online Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator.

rusra02 said:
Every effect has a cause. Automobiles, houses, computers, and wooden spoons do not occur without an intelligent maker. How much less logical to assume DNA, molecular machines, and other brilliant "products" are not the result of a superior Intellect and a Designer and Fabricator brilliant beyond measure.

Not the least of the problems your construct creates is the regerssion concerning the creator's, creator's, creator.

PeteC-UK said:
Hi Folks..
Animore;

Hmm - fossilisation - does NOT even take that long to occur at all - and can occur in just a matter of mere DECADES...I forget the details just now - will check if you insist - but I remember a modern story of a scientific explorer, who lost a hat of all things and only like thirty or so years later, went back to the same place and found his hat again, only now it was fully fossilised, thus proving beyond doubt that millions of years need not even apply at all...

Sorry, wrong ...

PeteC-UK said:
Second point - there is absolutely no way that life just spontaneously started all by its self and we have ALREADY PROVED THIS FALSE !!!

Interesting claim, where's the beef?

PeteC-UK said:
Look - science says and tries to convince us that the ingrediants for life just happened to randomly come together in some perfect ratio at the exact precise time and place - out of the worlds entire oceans -SOMEHOW - this rather unlikely event just happened spontanouesly they say and the tides just happened to wash it altogether in perfect harmony - et voila - life sprang up all by itself......

Straw-man.

PeteC-UK said:
UTTERLY RIDICULOUS - as a little backward engineering of life soon proves beyond doubt !!

See - we can now take LIVING biological matter...And we can mash it down completely to its base constituents - literally strip it right down into a "molecular soup" - or even finer - to an atomic mix if we wish - just as they say it ALL BEGAN out inthe wilds...lol.....BUT LOOK - when WE do this - NOTHING HAPPENS - EVER !!! we can NOT get even the PERFECT INGREDIANTS to reassemble and form life again as they ONCE did....We can NOT take a dead animal for example - let it decompose (or force it to) back into that chemical soup, then wait and wait for it to SPONTANEOUSLY come back to life - for after all this is what they propose happens isnt it..??...All by itself, these chemicals they say spontaneously form DNA - except - NO THEY DO NOT - NOT EVER !!!

IT NEVER HAPPENS - NOT ONCE EVER !! even when we have EVERYTHING we need - all the ORIGINAL chemical componants of a ONCE LIVING animal - now dead - and NEVER comes back to life in this "sponatneous manner".....The whole theory is RUBBISH - for if it was true, then we too could produce life from nothing under these ideal lab conditions - and yet we can not - even once living matter can NOT be reanimated AT ALL, not EVER !!

And look - NO MATTER WHAT WE DO - no matter what manipulation we do to these chemicals -still - they NEVER form DNA or anything like it NATURALLY...To MAKE them form takes DIRECT EXTERNAL MANIPULATION - we need to first introduce another chemical to MAKE THEM BOND - like a chemical frameowrk or scaffold - then once the dna forms we need to REMOVE our scaffolding.. It requires INTENDED MANIPULATION - nothing random or spontneous here Folks - not at all...DNA is A DESIGNED molecule that despite all our knowledge and experimentation we can NOT get to occur naturally and as said once LIVING dna that is destroyed does NOT EVER reform itself into life again....The theory is ridiculous - a GUESS at what is happening - and that guess ignores lots and lots of contrary evidence.....

No matter what WE do - we find there is ALWAYS something missing - the elusive "spark of life" - the DIVINE spark if you will - is MISSING from OUR experiements, and we know of no substitute that can cause life to appear spontanously..There is clearly something EXTRA happening in that dna formation process, that our science has no clue about at all, yet...

More straw-man based on the wrongheaded concept that on one side of the line you have things that are not alive and on the other side of a razor thin line you have things that are combined with the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.

Reggie Miller said:
Creationism requires faith since we were not there when it happened.

Evolution, i.e. abiogenesis also requires a great deal of faith considering that no one would have been there to have seen it.

The question is, Who do you put your faith in? God's witnesses or scientists who tell you there is no God who created?

One thing that has has less actual witnesses than abiogenesis is god.

PeteC-UK said:
Hi Folks..

Animore; All Im saying here is that science is OFTEN WRONG about a great many things - and even though they ARE indeed often wrong, still, they will insist ALWAYS that they are "authority" that should be believed without question...

What unmitigated horse puckey, science has proven to be the most honest and quickly self-correcting institution in the history of man.

PeteC-UK said:
This issue of fossils and dating is just one example that shows clearly how they manipulate truth to make it SEEM like "they know best", and like proper mugs, we just usually swallow it blindly without thinking...

When we DO stop and think though, we see that often times they are clearly mistaken - such as here - fossils - and their ridicluous theory soon debunked...First as said we have PROOF - literal "hard evidence" - that hat for one -

Debunked, not a fossil, sorry.

PeteC-UK said:
though go check it out

I did, and now you can too.

PeteC-UK said:
and youll soon find many many such examples that PROVE that fossilisation CAN happen in a very short time period indeed

Clearly falsified, you can drop it now.

PeteC-UK said:
and DOES NOT NEED millions of years as science mistakenly "insists" - we have seen it happen in just a single human lifespan, 50 years was all it took for a hat to change to fossil - yet they carbon date the hat and the result said it is like SIX THOUSAND YEARS OLD - when clearly it is just FIFTY years old !!!

This shows us undeniably TWO things - first - the base ASSUMPTION from science that the process REQUIRES millions of years is PROVED FALSE...And second - the DATING and age of fossils is ALSO proved to be inaccurate as their tests gave them a definate FALSE conclusion that is undeniable - the hat is ONLY 50 years old but the test said it SHOULD be 6000 years old - HUGE discrepance

shows us the test is NOT RELIABLE and so the age and dating of fossils is UNRELIABLE also !!!

Obviously the is horse puckey as fossilize items become stone and stone can not be carbon dated, since it does not absorb carbon 14 directly from the atmosphere like living material. See ... a little basic scientific knowledge goes a long way.

Sapiens · Nov 24, 2016

PeteC-UK said:
Do you even know HOW they date fossils Folks..??..It truly IS ridiculous - they take a strata of rock - they see what kind of fossils it contains - they then go look at other similar strata different area - and say because the rock is the same depth and kind, so the fossils within it MUST be the same age....RIDICULOUS as we see...And further, they then take a FOSSIL that they think they know the age of based on previous similar fossils - and so they then DATE THE ROCK ITSELF based ON the fossil...lol....Its like they just cross referance all the time fossil and rock - and yet they dont ACTUALLY KNOW any definate ages at all of either rock OR fossil...lol...They are just GUESSING Folks and again our modern artifact fossils PROVE their theory as wholly innacurate as their best guess turns out to be actually a huge HUGE discrepancy in actual real world time..

Literally they find a fossil and date it from the rock in which it is found - then they go elsewhere find a similar rock and say all the fossils there MUST be the same age...And visa versa - find a fossil they believe they have already aged correctly - then go find some other DIFFERENT ANIMALS in the SAME layers of rock, so they think they again MUST be the same age....RIDICULOUS as obviously things such as FLOODS - EARTHQUAKES meteor impacts etc etc - absolutely mash all this up rock strata get mixed and turned over, that which was bottom may now be top, that which was top may now be bottom - pretty obvious really - yet science clings to this same ridiculous notion of how to date it all...Any fossil can end up in any strata and it is totally unreliable to date it this way...

That's half true, and half lie. Radiometric dating of volcanic layers above or below the fossils is absolute, and used with comparisons to similar rocks and fossils of known ages remarkable accurate and reproducible.

PeteC-UK said:
So then they say oh yer that all true - but we do it SCIENTIFICALLY - we use a CARBON DATING METHOD - except NO - that IS NOT SCIENCE AT ALL... For that method to be UNIVERSALLY accurate then ALL these fossils WOULD ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE FORMED UNDER THE SAME ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS - which THEY WERE NOT !!!

Once again, CARBON DATING METHODS are NEVER used to date fossils, they only work on organic material.

PeteC-UK said:
To get an accurate dating from carbon, it needs to be EXACT and PERFECT and UNIVERSAL conditions - alter the conditons and the RATE OF FOSSILISATION CHANGES, giving a completly INNACURATE result - and again , modern fossilised artifacts PROVE this to be so as that hat took only 50 years to form yet dated to being SIX THOUSAND years old......see how UTTERLY UNRELIABLE it ACTUALLY is..??....It MUST BE the SAME atmospheric conditions through out to give an ACCURATE universal reading - and the Earth has NEVER HAD the IDENTICAL conditions from even one year to the next year, yet alone ovee supposed "millions of years"......The greater the timespan the GREATER THE INNACURACY - obviously totally undreliable - and yet it is taught and presented as if it was all "fact" - whch it is NOT - it is actually mostly GUESSWORK ..

I think we've reached the point where blah, blah, blah is the appropriate response to this Irwin Corey style philippic.

PeteC-UK said:
It has been clearly demonstrated time after time...Even the SAME dead fossilised animal - parts of it WILL GIVE DIFFERENT CARBON READINGS such that a tooth may say the animal is millions of years dead but OTHER tissue may show only a few thousand years...This is because just as I say it NEEDS a stable atmosphere to be accurate and we simply do not have that facility in the natural world..We even begin to find now with better techniques, SOFT TISSUE that science says should be utterly destroyed in just a few short decades...Modern findings are turning this particular field right on its head Folks - they ARE guessing...lol...

For the last time, the SAME dead fossilised animal will always yield the SAME CARBON READINGS, that is to say ... none at all.

PeteC-UK said:
NO - what Iam saying here is that this notion of "autogenesis" is a fable - again - it is merely guesswork - they dont actually know anything about life or what it is or how it formed, but they cant just say that openly, so instead present their "best guess" to us as if it was legitimate fact...lol...autogenesis is directly seen to be IMPOSSIBLE !!!

I can say that confidently because look, science says that if we gather these chemical ingediants together then all by themself they will SPONTANEOUSLY form LIFE - and they try to have us believe that out of all the worlds vast liquid oceans, this perfect soup of chemicals just happened by chance to come together and so the process began......

Straw-man fallacy.

PeteC-UK said:
So follow the obvious undeniable logic then - if we KILL a living animal and let it decompose BACK into that original chemical soup - then right there and then we have EVERYTHING WE NEED supposedly - and we know that as indeed this particular chemical soup until recently was a LIVING ORGANISM - we kill it, leave it there and so SHOULD have EVERYTHING in place - exact perfect mix according to this notion - all by itself - that soup will once again begin to spontaneously form RNA and DNA and so life begins..EXCEPT - NO IT DOES NOT - NOT EVER !! And so we see for sure their theory MUST be wrong - autogenesis IS A FALLACY as even under PERFECT CONDITIONS it NEVER happens spontaneously...

Straw man fallacy

PeteC-UK said:
So - we know what scientists are like - they investigate - tamper - experiment...and of course they tried everyting their clever minds could come up to make this autogeneiss begin -xapped the mix with all kinds of energetic radiation and electrical impulse - NOTHING - nish - nada - NOT EVER - completly INERT CHEMICALS still !!

The ONLY way the process can be MANIPULATED to begin requires a DIRECT INTERVENTION - they MUST literally build a chemical scaffold first, around which the dna begins to form - then they remove the scaffold and have thus somewhat "mimicked" what occurs "naturally" and unknown to them...The point is - it is NOT SPONTANEOUS AT ALL - it REQUIRES EXTERNAL MANIPULATION !!

Despite all that we HAVE learned - we simply can NOT CAUSE life to spontaneously arise - we can NOT re animate once living tissue - all we can do is CLONE dna that is ALREADY ALIVE !!! As said in all our experiments there is definately SOMETHING MISSING - an "extra ingrediant" that is NOT PHYSICAL at all..an UNKNOWN FORCE that can NOT be replicated !!

Look - we kill an animal - should have EVERYTHING physical we need for autogenesis to begin and life to renew itself spontaneously as they propose - it NEVER HAPPENS - the chemical soup ALWAYS remains INERT - in the act of "death" itself - something MUST be taken away - some as yet unknown force or parameter that is VITAL becomes LOST upon death and we CAN NOT REPLICATE IT, do NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS - but it is obviously real and indeed vital to life itself...

This MISSING componant is that which I cal the DIVINE SPARK - define it however you like - but clearly something IS missing from that chemical mix and dead inert chemical soups NEVER comes to life all by itself

Straw man fallacy with an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps fallacy.

Deeje said:
You should know better than to quote scripture to me mate.

ʼA·dhamʹ (Adam) means “man; human; earthling man; mankind” (generic) It pertains to females as well.
The Hebrew expression for woman is ʼish·shahʹ (literally, a female man), which is also rendered “wife.”

The word "brethren" is sometimes translated "brothers" but it means females as well.

LOL God doesn't think us girls are an afterthought. We are actually necessary for reproduction.
I hardly think God was advocating bestiality.

Read Genesis chapter one.....its all there. Remember that "kinds" cover many species within that kind.

Since God is the giver of life and also one who can restore it, there is no one who can charge him with murder. If someone breaks a law that is considered a capital offense, it is lawful to take that person's life. Justice demands it. A whole world of people had gone off the rails to such an extent that they were no longer capable of a good thought, let alone any good actions. If that was their "normal state" and there was no way that their children would learn to be any different in that climate of violence and immorality, then God was perfectly within his rights as the lawgiver to act as executioner.

Thankfully just one family managed to remain in tune with the Creator's standards, otherwise we would not be here.

Once again, where is the evidence of the genetic bottleneck ?

Deeje said:
This has already been addressed on this thread. Science does not assume the right to deny a Creator simply because they cannot prove his existence.

Science never does, the most science can do in terms of "proving" a negative is to say that it is extremely unlikely.

Deeje said:
They cannot prove that organic evolution is true either but it doesn't stop them from teaching it as fact. They say they can prove it, but the truth is the whole theory is based on supposition and conjecture.

You've been told and shown, often, that this statement is false.

Deeje said:
The existence of a power capable of creating the universe is simply not in the realms of scientific experience.....it doesn't mean that it can't exist and it doesn't mean that this entity was created.

Why must the universe be created but not the creator? That is logically absurd.

Deeje said:
We have no idea because we can only see the results of his activity. Its a bit like asking someone to prove that the wind exists. You can see its effects but not the wind itself.

A little smoke goes a long way. Why don't you try smoke and mirrors ... oh? You did.

Deeje said:
Cause and effect teaches us that anything produced has to have a cause......life had to have a cause. Science cannot provide proof that life could appear by random chance.

The cause, if indeed you need to call it a cause, is thermodynamics.

Deeje said:
Assumptions are all we have....you base yours on science and I base mine on the Bible. You trust your teachers, I trust mine.

A disingenuous attempt at pretending that it is only a matter of opinion with no real evidence on either side.

Deeje said:
We all have choices. We should make them wisely.

I agree, I suggest that you have not the requisites to do so since wisdom comes from studying all parts of the problem.

Deeje said:
Methinks you need to read more of this thread. I understand exactly what evolution is all about....I accept adaptation as minor changes within species, but I reject organic evolution completely. Do you know the difference? Most evolutionists use one as proof of the other. There is no connection.

You are saying that you believe in a ruler, but not in your car's odometer, that is absurd.

ArtieE · Nov 24, 2016

Deeje said:
LOL God doesn't think us girls are an afterthought. We are actually necessary for reproduction.
I hardly think God was advocating bestiality.

I just refer to Genesis where everybody can read that first they looked for a suitable companion among the animals and when they couldn't find any God improvised and made one from a rib.

Read Genesis chapter one.....its all there. Remember that "kinds" cover many species within that kind.

I repeat: Please list all the "kinds". It should be easy for you if they are all in Genesis one.

Deeje · Nov 24, 2016

metis said:
But the example you cite is "organic evolution". And it is not my "dreams" as you checkmated yourself because if you admit, as you did, that different human species had existed from a single source, that's "evolution"-- pure and simple.

Organic evolution is how life changed from one "kind" of creature into another "kind" of creature entirely over a very long period of time. Adaptation is how a single species adapted itself to climatic changes or differences in food sources over a shorter period of time. Adaptation does not explain organic evolution, it explains small changes in mostly minor ways to facilitate survival in a new or changed location.
There is not one shred of solid evidence that adaptation can be used to explain life spontaneously springing into existence in some primordial soup, and transforming itself into all life that has ever existed.
Microbes to dinosaurs is a big stretch in anyone's imagination.

If an early form of Homo erectus strolled into your house, I can pretty much guarantee you that you and your family would be heading out in a hurry, and it's not just appearances that are different.

You mean this guy?

Modeled to look like this?

200px-Homo_erectus_adult_female_-_head_model_-_Smithsonian_Museum_of_Natural_History_-_2012-05-17.jpg

Seems as if an ape's face could easily be replaced over that skull with the same amount of imagination and less bias.

We are supposedly related to chimps, correct?

This to this?

I can't see it...and no one can prove it.

So Deeje, game over.

LOL...the game never started.

Hey, but I'll still allow you to celebrate Thanksgiving anyway. Oh, but wait, you don't celebrate that, right? I'll guess I'll just have to eat your share of turkey, dressing, and mashed potatoes, followed by a nice piece of pumpkin pie with lots of whipped cream. Seems like you're on quite a losing streak.

I just whipped up a batch of banana blueberry muffins, just had one warm with ice cream....mmmmm
I think I'll survive.

Added: Hey, I'm just teasing you a bit, so please don't take the above personally.

Never do.

Deeje · Nov 24, 2016

ArtieE said:
I just refer to Genesis where everybody can read that first they looked for a suitable companion among the animals and when they couldn't find any God improvised and made one from a rib.

Genesis 2:18-23:
"Then Jehovah God said: “It is not good for the man to continue to be alone. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.” 19 Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name. 20 So the man named all the domestic animals and the flying creatures of the heavens and every wild animal of the field, but for man there was no helper as a complement of him. 21 So Jehovah God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22 And Jehovah God built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man.
23 Then the man said:
“This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man she was taken.”

I think we can all read what was said. The man was given the task of naming all the animals that God had formed. Adam would have noticed that all of them were paired up....all, except him, so last of all God made complement of him, not from the ground, but from his own DNA. This was "flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones". A surgical procedure if you like, way before surgery was even thought about.

I repeat: Please list all the "kinds". It should be easy for you if they are all in Genesis one.

Here you go..... let me know what's missing.

Genesis 1:20-31:
"20 Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.” 27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so.
31 After that God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day."

metis · Nov 24, 2016

Deeje said:
Organic evolution is how life changed from one "kind" of creature into another "kind" of creature entirely over a very long period of time. Adaptation is how a single species adapted itself to climatic changes or differences in food sources over a shorter period of time. Adaptation does not explain organic evolution, it explains small changes in mostly minor ways to facilitate survival in a new or changed location...

I actually taught this for 30 years in my anthropology courses, and you simply are discounting things by taking too much of a narrow view of "adaptation", plus also forgetting "mutation".

You mean this guy?...
Seems as if an ape's face could easily be replaced over that skull with the same amount of imagination and less bias.

...

We are supposedly related to chimps, correct?

But chimps have had their own evolution, so putting modern chimp and modern human skulls side by side is quite misleading because it leaves out all of the intermediate transformations in between.

The further we go back through the human fossil record, the more like ape-like they appear, and an early Homo erectus has a definitely more ape-like appearance than later H.e.'s. And there have literally been hundreds of these fossils found of H.e., so we know that they were not some sort of anomaly.

I'm gonna write a follow-up post shortly, so stay tuned.

ArtieE · Nov 24, 2016

Deeje said:
Genesis 2:18-23:
"Then Jehovah God said: “It is not good for the man to continue to be alone. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.” 19 Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name. 20 So the man named all the domestic animals and the flying creatures of the heavens and every wild animal of the field, but for man there was no helper as a complement of him.

]19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adamf no suitable helper was found. 21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsgand then closed up the place with flesh.
http://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/2.htm

"No suitable helper was found" therefore rib.

Genesis 1:20-31:
"20 Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds

Yes, it says "according to their kinds" so can you just list the kinds in your own words?

ArtieE · Nov 24, 2016

Deeje said:
Organic evolution is how life changed from one "kind" of creature into another "kind" of creature entirely over a very long period of time.

Please define "kind" and list them.

metis · Nov 24, 2016

OK, I'm back, but before I move on, let me just point out the fact that your position on the fossil record not only doesn't make any sense, it also defies the Bible. As been told to you undoubtedly many times, the fossil record itself shows sequencing. During the Cambrian Explosion, we don't find rabbit fossils or dinosaur fossils or human fossils. During the Jurassic Epoch we don't find rabbit or human fossils. During the time humans emerged, we don't find any dinosaur fossils. So this whole process clearly shows sequencing, and to not see that is the equivalent of taking every single fossil ever found and throwing them into the garbage.

According to a literal interpretation of the creation accounts, God stopped creating at the end of the sixth day/epoch ("yom" means "day", but it sometimes, but rarely, can be used symbolically to stand for an undetermined period of time). So, if humans didn't exist during the Cambrian Explosion nor the Jurassic period, then God must have created after the 6th day if one takes your point of view. Except the Bible doesn't say that.

[continued on next post]

metis · Nov 24, 2016

OK, let's play a game. Lets you & I go back to let's say 1200 c.e., whereas your an illiterate peasant and I'm at least somewhat literate who has read the creation accounts.

What I explained to you in our discussion then is that includes the creation accounts and the prevailing interpretations that the Earth is flat with corners whereas ships can fall off, that sea monsters sunk ships and ate sailors, that the sun revolves around the Earth,etc. We well know this from written records that these were views widely believed by the public, but that they were also taught within Christian circles.

OK, then we move to today, and you & I are having this same discussion, and I repeat what I taught you back in 1200. Whaddya think of me now? Whereas before I was a genius, now I'm the village idiot. [don't you dare say anything in response to this

]

So, what happened, especially since the verses haven't changed? What obviously happened is that the scientific evidence that we are all pretty much aware of forced those who have relied on the Bible to change their interpretation of numerous verses and narratives. It certainly did not mean the Bible was trashed-- just that people began to look at different interpretations.

Not only should this process continue with the creation accounts in regards to evolution, we also pretty much believe that these accounts have a history that goes back further in time, namely about 1000 years prior to the writing of Genesis. But before I cover that, let me make another point.

There are 17 different names for God found in the Tanakh, which are entirely in Hebrew, But many of those same names appear much earlier in Sumerian texts written in Cuneiform. But what also is different is that these are the names of different Sumerian deities, not just one. What appears to have happen is that my people way back when took these same exact names and applied them to God ("God" is from the Germanic language, of course).

Next, read this about Santa Claus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus Notice how he went from a real figure to a mythical one with very gradual alterations as this story spread worldwide but changed along the way.

This is what all societies have done and continue to do, namely to take things from other societies and then altering them to reflect their own values and morals.

The creation accounts appear to have gone through much the same type of evolution, namely emerged from a much earlier and larger Babylonian epic and then altered to reflect our Jewish morals and values. We know at least some of our people living in eretz Israel were familiar with that narrative because a cuneiform tablet of it was found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis by around 1000 years.

So, where does that leave us? Does this mean that the Bible is just trash? Of course not. Does it mean that it's wrong? No. Does it counter the creation accounts? Only if one takes the literalistic viewpoint. Does one have to take that viewpoint? Of course not, especially since the importance of these accounts is not whether they're historically factual but what are the morals and values that they teach-- that's what we can use today. Whether Adam & Eve existed as real people is totally unimportant today because if they did or didn't doesn't change anything.

So, like the flat-Earth teachings that were all fine and dandy in 1200 c.e., the same holds true with the literalisitc interpretation of the creation accounts today. Based on what we now know, it's clearly a faulty interpretation, so holding on to that interpretation really doesn't make any sense, not only a historical perspective but also a theological one.

Take care.

Rational Agnostic · Nov 24, 2016

Deeje said:
This has already been addressed on this thread. Science does not assume the right to deny a Creator simply because they cannot prove his existence. They cannot prove that organic evolution is true either but it doesn't stop them from teaching it as fact. They say they can prove it, but the truth is the whole theory is based on supposition and conjecture.

The existence of a power capable of creating the universe is simply not in the realms of scientific experience.....it doesn't mean that it can't exist and it doesn't mean that this entity was created. We have no idea because we can only see the results of his activity. Its a bit like asking someone to prove that the wind exists. You can see its effects but not the wind itself.
Cause and effect teaches us that anything produced has to have a cause......life had to have a cause. Science cannot provide proof that life could appear by random chance.

Assumptions are all we have....you base yours on science and I base mine on the Bible. You trust your teachers, I trust mine.

We all have choices. We should make them wisely.

Science is based upon empirical evidence. Religion is based upon the superstitions of ancient Middle Eastern nomads.

Watchmen · Nov 24, 2016

Deeje said:
Would you like to learn that what you have been fed is actually the result of smoke and mirrors and no actual evidence? Evolution is a fabrication fed to the masses by men with degrees, with nothing more than wishful thinking and some nifty diagrams holding it together.

This air of superiority in evolution supporters makes me smile......you really think we don't understand what evolution teaches?
Do you understand that the whole evolutionary theory is based on nothing more than educated guesswork and a bunch of bones that no one can connect by anything but conjecture and suggestion? The fossils are made to speak the language of the scientists because they have no voice of their own.

Are we all related? Well, if we are all made from the same basic raw materials, by the same Creator, then that is as plausible as guessing what "might have" happened because someone "suggested" that it "could have" taken place that way millions of years ago. Since nobody was there to document the process we are told that we must believe these men because they have science degrees?

Evolution has no more "scientific" proof of its veracity than ID has. I can't produce irrefutable evidence for my Creator any more than you can produce irrefutable evidence that there ever was a chain of evolutionary descent in any creature who has ever lived.

Finding different species of the same "kinds" of creature in different rock strata and assuming a chain of descent is not the same as providing proof of your assumption. Science does not have that proof. The fossils are strung together with nothing more than educated guesses and really good graphics.

You treat the notion of a Creator as a fairy story whilst promoting one of your own. Life just "poofed" itself into existence and then miraculously transformed itself into all the living species on this planet including man....with no intelligent direction whatsoever......now, that sounds plausible to you? It sounds ludicrous to me.

All I've asked is if you would like to learn about evolution. You haven't answered that question yet. And I do believe in a creator, so please don't assume anything.

SkepticThinker · Nov 24, 2016

Deeje said:
This has already been addressed on this thread. Science does not assume the right to deny a Creator simply because they cannot prove his existence. They cannot prove that organic evolution is true either but it doesn't stop them from teaching it as fact. They say they can prove it, but the truth is the whole theory is based on supposition and conjecture.

Yes, it has been addressed by me. And you avoided answering the question when I asked it, as you have done again here.

Deeje said:
The existence of a power capable of creating the universe is simply not in the realms of scientific experience.....it doesn't mean that it can't exist and it doesn't mean that this entity was created. We have no idea because we can only see the results of his activity. Its a bit like asking someone to prove that the wind exists. You can see its effects but not the wind itself.
Cause and effect teaches us that anything produced has to have a cause......life had to have a cause. Science cannot provide proof that life could appear by random chance.

Assumptions are all we have....you base yours on science and I base mine on the Bible. You trust your teachers, I trust mine.

We all have choices. We should make them wisely.

We can measure the wind and observe its effects. How do we measure god(s)?

It's not in the realm of human experience either, which is the perspective from which you've determined everything you seem to think you need to know about the universe.
So much for that argument.

SkepticThinker · Nov 24, 2016

Deeje said:
Methinks you need to read more of this thread. I understand exactly what evolution is all about....I accept adaptation as minor changes within species, but I reject organic evolution completely. Do you know the difference? Most evolutionists use one as proof of the other. There is no connection.

No, you really don't.

SkepticThinker · Nov 24, 2016

Deeje said:
Would you like to learn that what you have been fed is actually the result of smoke and mirrors and no actual evidence? Evolution is a fabrication fed to the masses by men with degrees, with nothing more than wishful thinking and some nifty diagrams holding it together.

This air of superiority in evolution supporters makes me smile......you really think we don't understand what evolution teaches?
Do you understand that the whole evolutionary theory is based on nothing more than educated guesswork and a bunch of bones that no one can connect by anything but conjecture and suggestion? The fossils are made to speak the language of the scientists because they have no voice of their own.

Yes, given that it's obvious from your posts and your repetition of stale and erroneous talking points.

Deeje said:
Are we all related? Well, if we are all made from the same basic raw materials, by the same Creator, then that is as plausible as guessing what "might have" happened because someone "suggested" that it "could have" taken place that way millions of years ago. Since nobody was there to document the process we are told that we must believe these men because they have science degrees?

Evolution has no more "scientific" proof of its veracity than ID has. I can't produce irrefutable evidence for my Creator any more than you can produce irrefutable evidence that there ever was a chain of evolutionary descent in any creature who has ever lived.

Finding different species of the same "kinds" of creature in different rock strata and assuming a chain of descent is not the same as providing proof of your assumption. Science does not have that proof. The fossils are strung together with nothing more than educated guesses and really good graphics.

You treat the notion of a Creator as a fairy story whilst promoting one of your own. Life just "poofed" itself into existence and then miraculously transformed itself into all the living species on this planet including man....with no intelligent direction whatsoever......now, that sounds plausible to you? It sounds ludicrous to me.

How is it possible at this point that you still think that the entirety of the evidence for evolution consists only of the fossil record?

Seriously, I need to know.

Deeje · Nov 24, 2016

metis said:
I actually taught this for 30 years in my anthropology courses, and you simply are discounting things by taking too much of a narrow view of "adaptation", plus also forgetting "mutation".

Metis, mutations are not what science paints them to be. The beneficial ones are so rare that it seems to me to be laughable to suggest that these created new creatures on the end of a long line of beneficial accidents. Adaptation and mutation is contained within species. That is all that is provable. The rest is pure supposition which is assumption made to appear to fit the "evidence".
Who interprets that evidence?

But chimps have had their own evolution, so putting modern chimp and modern human skulls side by side is quite misleading because it leaves out all of the intermediate transformations in between.

The so-called transitional species are a figment of scientific imagination. There is not one scrap of positive proof that these species were not just a families of various ape species that came and went unrelated in times past. We are not privy to what God specifically did before the appearance of man. It is assumed that we descended from these "human-like" animals because science has created the premise that evolution MUST be true and manufactured the view that there is a continuous line of descent from one species to another.....it is an unprovable suggestion, backed up by nothing more than a continuous line of conjecture, reinforcing their view, which IMO was totally flawed to begin with.

"Pre-historic" simply means 'before humans wrote things down'.....so I believe that when Moses wrote Genesis, he recorded man's history in a relatively simple fashion, to ordinary people who would have been confused by any scientific detail that was beyond their comprehension at the time. For the majority of humans, that still holds true. Humans in other cultures recorded things long before the Bible was written, but this was the account that the true God had written down so that his worshippers would know what actually happened. Myths and legends had always been sold to humans as truth....what makes you think that science can't do the same thing to a willing audience with evolution?

The apostle Paul knew two thousand years ago that man would render "sacred service to the creation, rather than to the one who created". This scenario was expected even though evolution had not even entered the minds of men.

The further we go back through the human fossil record, the more like ape-like they appear, and an early Homo erectus has a definitely more ape-like appearance than later H.e.'s. And there have literally been hundreds of these fossils found of H.e., so we know that they were not some sort of anomaly.

The anomaly arises when we assume relationship. ID means to us that the Creator had the same raw materials and the same basic bone structure for most land dwelling creatures. It does not suggest relationship as much as it suggest a brilliant basic design, used for many creatures in a different body shape. They are related only in the fact that they had a common designer who used the same basic DNA for all, and with a flare for beautiful creativity.

I'm gonna write a follow-up post shortly, so stay tuned.

Haven't read it yet.....just posting replies as I encounter them. Its hard when so many are on the opposite side of the world, in a different hemisphere, and there are a pile of responses when you get up in the morning.

I reject the very foundation upon which evolutionary science builds their case. So throwing manufactured evidence at me will not do the job. Accidents do not design anything and as I said....microbes to dinosaurs is a ridiculous stretch in anyone's imagination, no matter how much time you throw at it.

Deeje · Nov 24, 2016

metis said:
OK, I'm back, but before I move on, let me just point out the fact that your position on the fossil record not only doesn't make any sense, it also defies the Bible. As been told to you undoubtedly many times, the fossil record itself shows sequencing. During the Cambrian Explosion, we don't find rabbit fossils or dinosaur fossils or human fossils. During the Jurassic Epoch we don't find rabbit or human fossils. During the time humans emerged, we don't find any dinosaur fossils. So this whole process clearly shows sequencing, and to not see that is the equivalent of taking every single fossil ever found and throwing them into the garbage.

Does it?

Or can it not equally demonstrate a creative process over many thousands of years. The scriptures reveal that creation took place in a very long sequence, so I am not sure how you can say this disagrees with the Bible. It disagrees with some people's interpretation of the Bible actually.

According to a literal interpretation of the creation accounts, God stopped creating at the end of the sixth day/epoch ("yom" means "day", but it sometimes, but rarely, can be used symbolically to stand for an undetermined period of time). So, if humans didn't exist during the Cambrian Explosion nor the Jurassic period, then God must have created after the 6th day if one takes your point of view. Except the Bible doesn't say that.

I am not YEC and I do not believe that the creative "days" were 24 literal hours long. Science can at least tell us that much. The epochs that saw creation take place were exactly in line with what the Bible says.
It tells us that life began in the oceans and was completed with the creation of man....not apes. There is no timeframe, so each creative period may have taken eons of time.The Creator does not dwell in our timezone.

Assuming that evolution must be true because you can't squeeze creation into a literal week is due to poor interpretation of the Bible, just as I see poor interpretation of the evidence in science. Both equally wrong....and both stubbornly hanging onto their view because of believing the other camp is in error. Yet neither side can prove a thing.

As I have said all along....we just have different belief system....there is no "scientific proof" for either of them.....just some scholars interpretation of the evidence, and his "expert" opinion. Each has their followers.

Deeje · Nov 24, 2016

Hubert Farnsworth said:
Science is based upon empirical evidence. Religion is based upon the superstitions of ancient Middle Eastern nomads.

Please try to keep up. Do you know how many times that nonsense has been addressed?
Perhaps you need to do some research of your own.

Deeje · Nov 24, 2016

metis said:
OK, let's play a game. Lets you & I go back to let's say 1200 c.e., whereas your an illiterate peasant and I'm at least somewhat literate who has read the creation accounts.

What I explained to you in our discussion then is that includes the creation accounts and the prevailing interpretations that the Earth is flat with corners whereas ships can fall off, that sea monsters sunk ships and ate sailors, that the sun revolves around the Earth,etc. We well know this from written records that these were views widely believed by the public, but that they were also taught within Christian circles.

OK, then we move to today, and you & I are having this same discussion, and I repeat what I taught you back in 1200. Whaddya think of me now? Whereas before I was a genius, now I'm the village idiot. [don't you dare say anything in response to this ]

So, what happened, especially since the verses haven't changed? What obviously happened is that the scientific evidence that we are all pretty much aware of forced those who have relied on the Bible to change their interpretation of numerous verses and narratives. It certainly did not mean the Bible was trashed-- just that people began to look at different interpretations.

Not only should this process continue with the creation accounts in regards to evolution, we also pretty much believe that these accounts have a history that goes back further in time, namely about 1000 years prior to the writing of Genesis. But before I cover that, let me make another point.

There are 17 different names for God found in the Tanakh, which are entirely in Hebrew, But many of those same names appear much earlier in Sumerian texts written in Cuneiform. But what also is different is that these are the names of different Sumerian deities, not just one. What appears to have happen is that my people way back when took these same exact names and applied them to God ("God" is from the Germanic language, of course).

Next, read this about Santa Claus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus Notice how he went from a real figure to a mythical one with very gradual alterations as this story spread worldwide but changed along the way.

This is what all societies have done and continue to do, namely to take things from other societies and then altering them to reflect their own values and morals.

The creation accounts appear to have gone through much the same type of evolution, namely emerged from a much earlier and larger Babylonian epic and then altered to reflect our Jewish morals and values. We know at least some of our people living in eretz Israel were familiar with that narrative because a cuneiform tablet of it was found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis by around 1000 years.

So, where does that leave us? Does this mean that the Bible is just trash? Of course not. Does it mean that it's wrong? No. Does it counter the creation accounts? Only if one takes the literalistic viewpoint. Does one have to take that viewpoint? Of course not, especially since the importance of these accounts is not whether they're historically factual but what are the morals and values that they teach-- that's what we can use today. Whether Adam & Eve existed as real people is totally unimportant today because if they did or didn't doesn't change anything.

So, like the flat-Earth teachings that were all fine and dandy in 1200 c.e., the same holds true with the literalisitc interpretation of the creation accounts today. Based on what we now know, it's clearly a faulty interpretation, so holding on to that interpretation really doesn't make any sense, not only a historical perspective but also a theological one.

Take care.

Thanks Dad....that was a nice story...what else have you got?

Anything that actually includes a power greater than man's limited imagination that can guide and direct the writing of a simple story of human origin and history and then preserve it for many thousands of years despite all attempts to destroy it? Anything.....?

Just Accidental?

Avid Bible Student

Polymathematician

Polymathematician

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student