• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are scientists any closer

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh certainly not! In fact, it's one of the identifying characteristics of the internet creationist (shutting down discussions before they go too far).

One psychology article I read a while ago explained it as evangelical/fundamentalist Christians having very distinct and strong lines in the sand that they will absolutely refuse to cross, and as soon as a conversation, bit of information, or other material edges up to that line, the fundamentalist will do almost anything to make it all stop.....name call, throw tantrums, run to management, or most commonly, just plain run away. As we've seen, they'll even sacrifice their own credibility.

It's all in the service of their own emotional well-being and safety. Those lines in the sand are there for a reason, i.e., to protect the person behind them.
It is ironic that I grew up in an evangelical church. Even now, I attend one. I like the people. I just don't engage them about science. At least not in a way that gets them on high alert.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
You keep telling me that.
You told me the same thing before too... that you honestly don't know.
Consider me the jury that looks at the evidence, and comes to a conclusion.
Now ask yourself the questions you have asked me.
Yes. the jury is sometimes right, but they can't prove it. They could be right. They could be wrong, but they made a judgment, based on the evidence.
If you are happy with that, amd if that's the argument you stand by, then it would be strange if you have a problem with this jury. :smirk:

To remind you, just per chance you forgot, I told you, my early experience in life caused me to hate deception, and I tend to pick up on deception quite easily. So imagine if it's clear, to me, and being repeated.
You know some people tend to think, others take them for a fool, because the other person thinks of themselves are being smart... I call it sly, or cunning.

I'm no friend of that. I told you before, 'One smart died at too smart's door.' :smirk:
Friendly conversation and deceptive tactics are a bad mix... like oil and water. They don't go together.
One of the substances has to change.
Maybe the water has to become oil thinner, if the oil wants to remain oil, but for me, that's hard to do, if the oil is quite cloggy, or worst, it takes a lot of thinner, and I did try, for probably more than a dozen pages of RF space,,, and my time.

It didn't work, and I know it never will, and why.


This jury also does not buy that.
I'm sorry, maybe it's my past experience with you, and your words not being truthful.
This jury has come to the unanimous decision that you look for JWs to engage, and you have a special interest in a few particulars.
I told you all of this before you left Fly.
Jesus was a wise man on earth, and he told his followers, 'Yes, be innocent, but be wise." (Matthew 10:16) In other words, 'just because you are to befriend people, doesn't mean you are to be foolish'. ;)

Take care Fly. It's still nice to see you... and I know I won't be seeing the last of you, unless all the JWs leave. :D

Is the jury in error? Well, we can't always be right, can we? ;)
I don't know which court system you're copying, but the one I'm familiar with, the jury does not do any accusing. So to answer your question, yes, the jury is in error. Case dismissed. ;):hammer:
 

GardenLady

Active Member
One reason I'm interested is because it is said that they comingled with homosapiens and left genes. I wonder what the neanderthal genes were exclusively with the before the comingling. I don't believe it so far just because they say it is so.

It is clearly demonstrated that many currently living humans have Neanderthal DNA. This is also the case with Denisovan DNA. It appears, from what I have read, that it is more common among northern Europeans with blue, gray, or green eyes. I'll post where I read that if I can find it again.

I submitted DNA (check cell scrapings) to the National Geographic Society's "Genographic Study." My DNA is 2.4 percent Neanderthal and 2.1% Denisovan. My heritage is Irish (mostly), English, and Scottish. I have blue eyes.

Edited to add: Neanderthal Facts & Myths.
 
Last edited:

GardenLady

Active Member
And that the Bible has survived through many trials and tribulations tells me that it's very special.

I am a Christian and read the Bible regularly. But I have to say, this is not a compelling argument. Looking at the great length of human history, the 5000 year of the OT and 2000 years of the NT is a blink. It’s like people who claim American Exceptionalism. Looking at the rise and fall of nations over millennia, the life of the US so far is like the life of a gnat.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am a Christian and read the Bible regularly. But I have to say, this is not a compelling argument. Looking at the great length of human history, the 5000 year of the OT and 2000 years of the NT is a blink. It’s like people who claim American Exceptionalism. Looking at the rise and fall of nations over millennia, the life of the US so far is like the life of a gnat.
It is a compelling argument for me to understand it as God's Word. Moses writings have been there for many years -- detailed accounts with names of places and circumstances. And the Israelites and later Christian believers added to those writings as the centuries wore on. Yes, it's compelling for me, and I am thrilled to realize both the complexity and detail of the writings.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It is clearly demonstrated that many currently living humans have Neanderthal DNA. This is also the case with Denisovan DNA. It appears, from what I have read, that it is more common among northern Europeans with blue, gray, or green eyes. I'll post where I read that if I can find it again.

I submitted DNA (check cell scrapings) to the National Geographic Society's "Genographic Study." My DNA is 2.4 percent Neanderthal and 2.1% Denisovan. My heritage is Irish (mostly), English, and Scottish. I have blue eyes.

Edited to add: Neanderthal Facts & Myths.
There are many unanswered questions in regard to human history pertaining to evolution. evolution | The Epoch Times
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
It is a compelling argument for me to understand it as God's Word. Moses writings have been there for many years -- detailed accounts with names of places and circumstances. And the Israelites and later Christian believers added to those writings as the centuries wore on. Yes, it's compelling for me, and I am thrilled to realize both the complexity and detail of the writings.
That is your belief. It could easily just be mans word about God.

Are you saying that people cannot provide detailed accounts without divine intervention?

There are lots of historical writings with great detail.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There certainly are. But just because details remain to be elucidated, does not mean that the theory explaining the overall process has failed.
I have come to the conclusion that many scientists do not agree with the mass conclusions (confusions).
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have come to the conclusion that many scientists do not agree with the mass conclusions (confusions).
Very very few scientists disagree with evolution. It is a small percentage. And do you know what the difference is between those that accept evolution and those that deny evolution is? Those that accept it can support their claims. Those that deny it are unable to do so. That is why it is a very small percentage of scientists even though a significant percentage of scientists are Christians.

If creationists could support their claims they would get far more support.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Very very few scientists disagree with evolution. It is a small percentage. And do you know what the difference is between those that accept evolution and those that deny evolution is? Those that accept it can support their claims. Those that deny it are unable to do so. That is why it is a very small percentage of scientists even though a significant percentage of scientists are Christians.

If creationists could support their claims they would get far more support.
Because of the situation and disagreements among those who call themselves Bible believers, I'm not discussing that now in particular. And in order for me to have a meaningful discussion, it would be necessary to see what you mean when you use the term creationist.
Secondly, as we see here, there are those claiming to be Christian but really don't believe what the Bible says in reference to whether Jesus or Moses even existed, that's just one basic, which leaves their adherence to what the Bible says in extreme question. So now...that leads me to wonder about their adherence to the Bible at all except maybe that they like some things it says. But hardly believe things to like Jesus, Moses, the miracles, the resurrection, and so on
Thirdly, the more I delve into this, the more preposterous it--the findings inserted into the theory--becomes. Now I understand that Darwin proposed, based on looks that the various forms of nature evolved. And that's where I am going to leave it for now.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Because of the situation and disagreements among those who call themselves Bible believers, I'm not discussing that now in particular. And in order for me to have a meaningful discussion, it would be necessary to see what you mean when you use the term creationist.
Secondly, as we see here, there are those claiming to be Christian but really don't believe what the Bible says in reference to whether Jesus or Moses even existed, that's just one basic. So now...that leads me to wonder about their adherence to the Bible.
Thirdly, the more I delve into this, the more preposterous it--the findings inserted into the theory--becomes. Now I understand that Darwin proposed, based on looks that the various forms of nature evolved. And that's where I am going to leave it for now.
What Christians are you debating that do not believe Jesus existed? I must have missed them.

Yet, you have failed to demonstrate anything regarding your claims about the theory of evolution, evidence, etc.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There certainly are. But just because details remain to be elucidated, does not mean that the theory explaining the overall process has failed.
There is nothing substantiating the theory in reality. I have been looking at neanderthal man (so-called) and homo sapiens and the evidence is basically conjecture based on ..? Dna? Fossils?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What Christians are you debating that do not believe Jesus existed? I must have missed them.

Yet, you have failed to demonstrate anything regarding your claims about the theory of evolution, evidence, etc.
I'll let you know when I come across their posts again. What about Moses, what about the miracles?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Because of the situation and disagreements among those who call themselves Bible believers, I'm not discussing that now in particular. And in order for me to have a meaningful discussion, it would be necessary to see what you mean when you use the term creationist.
Secondly, as we see here, there are those claiming to be Christian but really don't believe what the Bible says in reference to whether Jesus or Moses even existed, that's just one basic, which leaves their adherence to what the Bible says in extreme question. So now...that leads me to wonder about their adherence to the Bible at all except maybe that they like some things it says. But hardly believe things to like Jesus, Moses, the miracles, the resurrection, and so on
Thirdly, the more I delve into this, the more preposterous it--the findings inserted into the theory--becomes. Now I understand that Darwin proposed, based on looks that the various forms of nature evolved. And that's where I am going to leave it for now.
So you follow a straw man version of the theory of evolution that no scientist accepts and only creationists think is science.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
There is nothing substantiating the theory in reality. I have been looking at neanderthal man (so-called) and homo sapiens and the evidence is basically conjecture based on ..? Dna? Fossils?
You keep saying it, in the face of rational explanation based on logic, reason and evidence. The evidence is DNA, fossils, geography, age, etc.

What you claim is conjecture and logical fallacies.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
There is nothing substantiating the theory in reality. I have been looking at neanderthal man (so-called) and homo sapiens and the evidence is basically conjecture based on ..? Dna? Fossils?
Denial in the face of reality seems to be the only thing you have.
 
Top