Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[gnostic]

As to pyramid building, I have already told you that before true pyramids (at Dahshur (eg Red Pyramid) and Giza (great pyramid of Khufu)) of the 4th dynasty, the pyramids developed in the 3rd dynasty, beginning with Djoser (early 27th century BCE) was the Step Pyramid.

But BEFORE Djoser's Step Pyramid, the Protodynastic period, 1st dynasty and 2nd dynasty, stone tombs for kings were mastaba in shape. The step pyramid are based upon the mastaba design.

Clearly you don't know what a mastaba-shape tomb is.

Mastaba have normally either rectangular or squarish-base, but the roof of the mastaba, unlike the pyramid, is flat. Mastaba means flat bench in Arabic.

Although in the Old Kingdom (3rd to 6th dynasties, which is from early 27th century to 22nd century BCE) was known as the Age of the Pyramids, but not all kings could afford to build pyramids, so mastaba-design tombs continued to be used in the Old Kingdom.

This is what a mastaba tomb of Shepseskaf (last king of the 4th dynasty) look like at Saqqara:

Most tombs of the 1st and 2nd dynasty, looked like this one. In the protodynastic period (like the tomb of Hor-Aha) and most of the kings of the 1st dynasty, were buried in tombs at necropolis Umm El Qa'ab, which is just outside of Abydos. And there are number of mastabas found here.

This is what 3rd dynasty Djoser's Step Pyramid looks like:

Basically, a step pyramid is like layers of mastaba built on top of each other, with each mastaba above is smaller in size.

And this is what the first true pyramid shape tomb (at Dahshur) looks like, belonging to the father of Khufu, Sneferu. Sneferu was 1st king of the 4th dynasty (reign 2613 - 2589 BCE):

This is technological progress. It is not based on evolution, which is biology, and it isn't instinct.

They are just learn skills, where they improve on design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As to pyramid building, I have already told you that before true pyramids (at Dahshur (eg Red Pyramid) and Giza (great pyramid of Khufu)) of the 4th dynasty, the pyramids developed in the 3rd dynasty, beginning with Djoser (early 27th century BCE) was the Step Pyramid.

But BEFORE Djoser's Step Pyramid, the Protodynastic period, 1st dynasty and 2nd dynasty, stone tombs for kings were mastaba in shape. The step pyramid are based upon the mastaba design.

Clearly you don't know what a mastaba-shape tomb is.

Mastaba have normally either rectangular or squarish-base, but the roof of the mastaba, unlike the pyramid, is flat. Mastaba means flat bench in Arabic.

Although in the Old Kingdom (3rd to 6th dynasties, which is from early 27th century to 22nd century BCE) was known as the Age of the Pyramids, but not all kings could afford to build pyramids, so mastaba-design tombs continued to be used in the Old Kingdom.

This is what a mastaba tomb of Shepseskaf (last king of the 4th dynasty) look like at Saqqara:

Most tombs of the 1st and 2nd dynasty, looked like this one. In the protodynastic period (like the tomb of Hor-Aha) and most of the kings of the 1st dynasty, were buried in tombs at necropolis Umm El Qa'ab, which is just outside of Abydos. And there are number of mastabas found here.

This is what 3rd dynasty Djoser's Step Pyramid looks like:

Basically, a step pyramid is like layers of mastaba built on top of each other, with each mastaba above is smaller in size.

And this is what the first true pyramid shape tomb (at Dahshur) looks like, belonging to the father of Khufu, Sneferu. Sneferu was 1st king of the 4th dynasty (reign 2613 - 2589 BCE):

This is technological progress. It is not based on evolution, which is biology, and it isn't instinct.

They are just learn skills, where they improve on design.

Yet the development of the pyramid mimics evolution to a degree. The mastaba appears to be a refinement of earlier tombs. The step pyramid is simply a series o mastaba one stacked upon the other. Then the true pyramid form from that. Man's work mimicking nature.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, your replies are worrying me. Everything I said was in reply to something you said. I have moved no goalposts, or changed any subjects, but simply answered things YOU raised in your posts. Go back and read them.

The point about things being forced on students of science in any public education system, is that the unprovable theory of evolution is taught as if it were established and substantiated fact. Kids are force fed this 'doctrine' even though it cannot be proven. So tell me why you think that science has the high ground in this issue? Should suggestions backed up by supposition actually replace true facts in education? We know that some early historians fiddled with history to paint their own nation in a better light.....and as the truth comes to light in later times, history needs to be rewritten so that lies are exposed and truth can be taught. Science is no different.

What concern me is your wilful ignorance.

How many times have people told you that science don't prove or disprove anything? That proof isn't evidence? How many times must people tell you that mathematicians prove or disprove mathematical equations (proofs), not scientists?

How many times must people tell you that the only way to test science, is through evidences, either through discovery on the field or through repeated experiments or tests?

And that multiple testable evidences will either refute or verify and validate hypotheses or theories, as statistically probable, highly probable, improbable and highly improbable. Science is about probability, not possibility...or in the cases of Creationism and Intelligent Design, both improbable and impossible.

How many times must people tell you that Evolution is about biodiversity, not the origin of first life, which is a different field of study called Abiogenesis?

Until you learn from your repeated mistake on what's what, you will continue to keep your head buried in the sand.

 

[gnostic]

Yet the development of the pyramid mimics evolution to a degree. The mastaba appears to be a refinement of earlier tombs. The step pyramid is simply a series o mastaba one stacked upon the other. Then the true pyramid form from that. Man's work mimicking nature.

Technological evolution or technological progress or innovation, yes.

But Evolution in biology concern itself with changes to population, and that can only happened through some forms of replication (eg reproduction) and passing genes to the next generation (hence genetics).

The mastabas and pyramids cannot self-replicate itself, to produce new tombs. It require people to build it and people (eg kings) to finance the building projects.

Tombs are themselves not living matters, but they do have deceased buried within them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Technological evolution or technological progress or innovation, yes.

But Evolution in biology concern itself with changes to population, and that can only happened through some forms of replication (eg reproduction) and passing genes to the next generation (hence genetics).

The mastabas and pyramids cannot self-replicate itself, to produce new tombs. It require people to build it and people (eg kings) to finance the building projects.

Tombs are themselves not living matters, but they do have deceased buried within them.

I agree. As I said, mimicking, not perfect. But an example of how one could use a system similar to evolution to solve a problem.

 

[Deeje]

What concern me is your wilful ignorance.

What concerns me is your refusal to admit the truth. I have stated nothing but the truth and if you had evidence to the contrary that was not dependent upon suggestion and supposition, it would have been produced by now instead of the same lame excuses and accusations of ignorance. I don't lack knowledge....you guys lack substantive evidence....after all, you are the ones who claim to have it.

I challenge you to provide evidence where there is no resorting to 'faith' in what someone else said' or 'belief' that the evidence they put forward was accurate.
Truth isn't prefixed by a "could have" or a "might have".

How many times must people tell you that the only way to test science, is through evidences, either through discovery on the field or through repeated experiments or tests?

And that multiple testable evidences will either refute or verify and validate hypotheses or theories, as statistically probable, highly probable, improbable and highly improbable. Science is about probability, not possibility...or in the cases of Creationism and Intelligent Design, both improbable and impossible.

You have not provided testable evidence that what you believe isn't improbable and impossible. A hypothesis is another name for an idea someone came up with that they would like to explore. Theories, likewise are only ideas until proven otherwise. Statistical probability means nothing because again its just making guesses. Are 'probability' and 'possibility' the same? Is creation really improbable simply because science is unacquainted with the power that caused it? Denial and resorting to guesswork is hardly a successful demolition of ID. You have a belief system, just like I have. You just can't admit that you swapped one unpopular and unprovable belief for an equally unprovable but more popular one.

To my way of thinking, unless you can prove something you call a fact, you have a hide calling it anything but an unprovable idea. Is evolution taught as anything but absolute truth? Not in any field of science that I know of.

How many times must people tell you that Evolution is about biodiversity, not the origin of first life, which is a different field of study called Abiogenesis?

Why do evolutionists find abiogenesis so threatening? They steer clear of it like its the plague. The hand is up....don't mention it....its not our problem.

The truth is, who cares how life on this planet changed if you have no idea how it got here?

If there is a Creator, then that changes everything....absolutely everything that evolutionists believe....and I think it scares the heck out of them. Imagine the embarrassment, of having to eat all that crow ?

I can just see Dawkins and his ilk heading for the door to run away....there will be an angry mob after them.

Until you learn from your repeated mistake on what's what, you will continue to keep your head buried in the sand.

Or you will.....

But Evolution in biology concern itself with changes to population, and that can only happened through some forms of replication (eg reproduction) and passing genes to the next generation (hence genetics).

Evolution in biology is only observed adaptation.....it goes no further than science can test. Adaptation is only observable within one taxonomic family. There is absolutely no evidence that it can go any further than that.
It produces variety within a species but not new creatures. Science merely suggests that it "could have" or "might have" done that.

The mastabas and pyramids cannot self-replicate itself, to produce new tombs. It require people to build it and people (eg kings) to finance the building projects.

Tombs are themselves not living matters, but they do have deceased buried within them.

The earth itself is not a living thing. But it is designed to support an infinite variety of life. How many fortunate coincidences does it take to end up with what science wants us to believe on their say so? When do we have to stop and say, "well I guess its rather improbable to suggest that coincidence can actually stretch that far". Yet it doesn't stop them from promoting their ideas as facts...does it? Any opposition to their theory and its

 

[Deeje]

This is technological progress. It is not based on evolution, which is biology, and it isn't instinct.

They are just learn skills, where they improve on design.

What about birds nests? Who taught the birds to make the specific and sometimes exclusive design that each species creates? Remember that no babies were witnesses to the making of their own nests, so it isn't a learned behavior....
What biological process could explain this? What is instinct exactly?

Can you tell me how evolution explains this amazing ability to build a nest in exactly the same way as their parents, even though they were not around to observe how it was done? These look planned to me...what about you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about birds nests? Who taught the birds to make the specific and sometimes exclusive design that each species creates? Remember that no babies were witnesses to the making of their own nests, so it isn't a learned behavior....
What biological process could explain this? What is instinct exactly?

Can you tell me how evolution explains this amazing ability to build a nest in exactly the same way as their parents, even though they were not around to observe how it was done? These looks planned to me...what about you?

You are making several logical errors here. One is in thinking that a "who" was involved. The next is your are making an argument from ignorance.

Do you realize that the answer is that it is instinctual whether you are a creationist or not as to how they learn how to build such nests? Do you understand that?

 

[ArtieE]

I have no problem with teaching evolution in school....as long as they understand that its a theory, not a fact.
Biology is a wonderful subject for children as long as they are not led to believe that all life is just a series of fortunate accidents and that life itself just "happened" "somehow". That is an unprovable assumption....so why not the assumption that an all powerful Being could be the Creator and "first cause" of everything?

Because it's biology class and not Bible class. In JW Bible class you can use your version of the Bible and teach whatever you like, including your personal interpretation of Genesis. But then you must accept that others will teach their interpretation of the Bible and Qu'ran and The Urantia Book and The Book Of Mormon and every other holy scriptures. Raëlians would have their own class teaching that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials, which they call the Elohim.

Scientists are annoyed when their theory is challenged because they know full well that they can't prove a thing that they assume about how life came to be so diverse. All mention of a Creator elicits scorn and derision. Why is God such a threat?

Because he doesn't belong in biology class but in Bible class. In JW Bible class you can use your version of the Bible and teach whatever you like, including your personal interpretation of Genesis. But your teachings have no place in a biology class any more than the teachings of Islam or the Raëlians.

 

[cladking]

Natural philosophy continued to develop through the baroque and rococo periods, and at some points (I don’t have exact dates on this), natural philosophy eventually turned into multiple branches of natural scien.

We no longer use "natural philosophy" because it doesn't work. Nothing exists to tie natural philosopical theory to reality hence theory drifts from reality and it has no predictive capabilities and provides NO understanding of any sort top the researcher.

Science is tied to reality through experiment and only through experiment. This is how they went wrong with the ToE; there exists no experiment tying survival of the fittest to a gradual change in species. There is no experiment which shows anything about life whatsoever occurs gradually. ToE is interpretation of observation. It is "natural philosophy" and it is incomplete, off the track, and wrong.

 

[cladking]

​

This is technological progress. It is not based on evolution, which is biology, and it isn't instinct.

They are just learn skills, where they improve on design.

How they built pyramids is irrelevant to this thread and can't be made relevant.

I dare you to take it to the "Ancient Reality" thread where it is relevant.

Technological progress is necessarily founded in science.
OK, obviously minor improvements can be made in existing technology and extrapolations of existing technology can be made outside of scientific theory. If you look at history you'll see just how limited such advancements are. Between 2000 BC and 1500 AD there were no major advances other than the introduction of currency and the printing press. These were extrapolations and required no new theory.

 

[cladking]

The earth itself is not a living thing. But it is designed to support an infinite variety of life. How many fortunate coincidences does it take to end up with what science wants us to believe on their say so? When do we have to stop and say, "well I guess its rather improbable to suggest that coincidence can actually stretch that far". Yet it doesn't stop them from promoting their ideas as facts...does it? Any opposition to their theory and its

This is another thing believers are unable to see because the ToE obscures their vision.

Species can't adapt to everything but life can adapt to most anything. If a major change occurred on earth most species and most individuals of every species would die based on their consciousness, behavior, and nature. The survivors would breed new species some of which are more suited to life on the new earth. And then those species would give rise to as divergent array of species as new conditions will support. None of this would happen slowly unless the change of the planet happened slowly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We no longer use "natural philosophy" because it doesn't work. Nothing exists to tie natural philosopical theory to reality hence theory drifts from reality and it has no predictive capabilities and provides NO understanding of any sort top the researcher.

Science is tied to reality through experiment and only through experiment. This is how they went wrong with the ToE; there exists no experiment tying survival of the fittest to a gradual change in species. There is no experiment which shows anything about life whatsoever occurs gradually. ToE is interpretation of observation. It is "natural philosophy" and it is incomplete, off the track, and wrong.

Of course you are wrong. This merely shows that you do not understand the nature of experiment, even though this has been explained to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is another thing believers are unable to see because the ToE obscures their vision.

Species can't adapt to everything but life can adapt to most anything. If a major change occurred on earth most species and most individuals of every species would die based on their consciousness, behavior, and nature. The survivors would breed new species some of which are more suited to life on the new earth. And then those species would give rise to as divergent array of species as new conditions will support. None of this would happen slowly unless the change of the planet happened slowly.

What are you talking about? The roll of major extinctions is well understood in the theory of evolution. It appears that your error may be in that you are thinking that theories do not change over time. Darwin's version of evolution has been improved upon. No biologist goes on a purely Darwinistic version of the theory of evolution today. It appears that you are trying to argue against a strawman.

 

[cladking]

No biologist goes on a purely Darwinistic version of the theory of evolution today. It appears that you are trying to argue against a strawman.

Virtually all biologists believe in gradual change in species. Most believe this is the root of most speciation.

They are wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Virtually all biologists believe in gradual change in species. Most believe this is the root of most speciation.

They are wrong.

I'm sure they look forward to reading your paper on the subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Virtually all biologists believe in gradual change in species. Most believe this is the root of most speciation.

They are wrong.

I am still waiting for the evidence that supports this statement. You have not presented any yet. I have offered to post evidence to the contrary if and when you support your claim. But since you can't there is no need for me to do so. Your unsupported claim is self refuting by that inability of yours.

 

[Deeje]

Because it's biology class and not Bible class.

Who said biology has to be separate from the one who created it? Scientists?

Do you assume that scientists know everything about life? They can't even tell you how it began, so they are really only adding weight to a very weak foundation. Collapse, I believe is inevitable.

In JW Bible class you can use your version of the Bible and teach whatever you like, including your personal interpretation of Genesis.

Which we do. Our kids don't go into science classes with their eyes and ears closed. We teach them to appreciate that the Creator is the best scientists in existence. How do people separate science from its creator? They have to kill God first. Most have done that very successfully...but only in their own minds. You can't make him go away by ignoring him.

But then you must accept that others will teach their interpretation of the Bible and Qu'ran and The Urantia Book and The Book Of Mormon and every other holy scriptures. Raëlians would have their own class teaching that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials, which they call the Elohim.

They are free to do so.

Because he doesn't belong in biology class but in Bible class.

Again....who says?

I believe that he will show all humanity soon enough, where he belongs.

 

[Deeje]

This is another thing believers are unable to see because the ToE obscures their vision.

The Bible says that this is a special kind of "blindness"....but it only affects "unbelievers". (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Species can't adapt to everything but life can adapt to most anything. If a major change occurred on earth most species and most individuals of every species would die based on their consciousness, behavior, and nature. The survivors would breed new species some of which are more suited to life on the new earth.

I think this is what scientists have observed with adaptation.....species can adapt over time to accommodate new habitats and food sources. These adaptive changes are passed on to new offspring, but never has adaptation resulted in a new creature. It only produces variety within a single taxonomic family. Science has no evidence to the contrary.

None of this would happen slowly unless the change of the planet happened slowly.

Adaptation keeps up with external circumstances. If it didn't, as you said, the species would die out. This perhaps explains why some creatures went extinct in times past? Today species go extinct because of man's mismanagement of the earth. He knows better but is driven by greed. How horrible to think that the most intelligent species on earth, is life's greatest threat.

 

[ArtieE]

Who said biology has to be separate from the one who created it? Scientists?

Do you assume that scientists know everything about life? They can't even tell you how it began, so they are really only adding weight to a very weak foundation. Collapse, I believe is inevitable.

Which we do. Our kids don't go into science classes with their eyes and ears closed. We teach them to appreciate that the Creator is the best scientists in existence. How do people separate science from its creator? They have to kill God first. Most have done that very successfully...but only in their own minds. You can't make him go away by ignoring him.

They are free to do so.

Again....who says?

I believe that he will show all humanity soon enough, where he belongs.

I will give you a chance Deeje. Start a new thread. Call it "Deeje teaches ID". No mention of evolution or Gods. No derogatory comments. Just teach us ID.