What creationists know

[Carico]

Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

1) That the earth was created from water and by water
2) That God created the earth
3) How long it took God to create the earth
4) Why the sun just happens to be positioned the exact distance away from the earth to sustain life on earth
5) The purpose for the stars and moon
6) How man was created and why
7) Why the flesh and bones of man decay into dust
8) How and why animals & humans each reproduce themselves and not other animals
8) How the earth and all living things will end
9) What happens after humans die
10) That there is a God and who He is

That's just the tip of the iceberg of what creationists know. Scientists know NONE of the above which is why they're constantly exploring and always will continue to do so. ;)

[geologyrocks]

Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

1) Nothing


Just fixing that for you ;)

[Pandaemoni]

Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

1) That the earth was created from water and by water
2) That God created the earth
3) How long it took God to create the earth
4) Why the sun just happens to be positioned the exact distance away from the earth to sustain life on earth
5) The purpose for the stars and moon
6) How man was created and why
7) Why the flesh and bones of man decay into dust
8) How and why animals & humans each reproduce themselves and not other animals
8) How the earth and all living things will end
9) What happens after humans die
10) That there is a God and who He is

That's just the tip of the iceberg of what creationists know. Scientists know NONE of the above which is why they're constantly exploring and always will continue to do so. ;)

If you replace "know" with "believe" and your post is correct. Scientists, employing logic as the must, are aware that no "fact" about the material universe can ever be unassailably "known" to be 100% true. Will the Sun rise tomorrow? Probably, but there is a small chance that it won't. Did the Sun rise this morning? It seems to have, but there is a very small chance that it didn't and I have both had my life saved and my senses fooled into thinking that it did.

I respect your right to believe in what the Bible tells you, but don't condescend and suggest that people who prefer strict logic to ancient tomes that you believe to be authoritative because you were taught that it is the Word of God (and you believe that because you learned it from trusted sources like "parents") are less knowledgeable than you are.

[iceaura]

That's just the tip of the iceberg of what creationists know. Scientists know NONE of the above The differentiation of creationists and scientists is unusual. A new tack in the campaign ?

[solidsquid]

Carico, do you know what the definition of "futile" is?

[Carico]

If you replace "know" with "believe" and your post is correct. Scientists, employing logic as the must, are aware that no "fact" about the material universe can ever be unassailably "known" to be 100% true. Will the Sun rise tomorrow? Probably, but there is a small chance that it won't. Did the Sun rise this morning? It seems to have, but there is a very small chance that it didn't and I have both had my life saved and my senses fooled into thinking that it did.

I respect your right to believe in what the Bible tells you, but don't condescend and suggest that people who prefer strict logic to ancient tomes that you believe to be authoritative because you were taught that it is the Word of God (and you believe that because you learned it from trusted sources like "parents") are less knowledgeable than you are.

Sorry but logic isn't claiming that apes can turn into humans. ;) Nor is logic making assertions that no one in the past or present has observed or documented such as a global ice age. Those are the things of science fiction. ;)

[Pandaemoni]

Sorry but logic isn't claiming that apes can turn into humans. ;) Nor is logic making assertions that no one in the past or present has observed or documented such as a global ice age. Those are the things of science fiction. ;)

Logic is not limited to things you see yourself. Logic and science tell us that the Sun is made mostly of hydrogen, yet no one has ever been there, nor collected a sample, nor could we ever. Logic and science tell us that the Moon is held in orbit by gravity, the same force that pulls an apple straight down to the ground. Logic and science tell us that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than vice versa, yet damned if it doesn't look and feel slightly different.

Logic and science do not tell is that apes can turn into men, it tells us that modern man and modern apes have common ancestors. Apparently the Bible doesn't have pictures of the various other hominids that have lived on this planet, but they clearly did exist and you can see their fossils. The 'missing link' between those hominids and man, was found long ago leaving us with quite a strong understanding of the evolution of man over the past few million years.

Science tells us about one "global" ice age that I know of (aka "Snowball Earth") but it is more hypothesis at this stage. There have been many glacial periods that were less than global, though, as your eyes and logic can demonstrate if you your eyes and mind remain open. If you come to places in New York, there is clear evidence of glaciation. It was not a theory developed on a whim it was a process of slowly accumulating evidence for it, until eventually few who viewed the evidence could dispute it as the most likely explanation for what we see. It was a theory that virtually everyone resisted at first, until the evidence became overwhelming. If you see me come into your house wet and holding an umbrella, logic does not require that you see the rain and feel it on your skin to accept that it was there. Without seeing it yourself the most you'd ever have is circumstantial evidence of it, but the empiricism of science is not naive experientialism that requires direct proof in every case. Indeed, there is no direct proof that subatomic particles exist, and when Einstein proved that atoms exist he did it by means of the circumstantial evidence that we call "Brownian motion."

(Geologists might, as might biologists about evolution, be wrong in their beliefs about glaciation, but, again, the Sun may not rise tomorrow too. Anything is possible, though some things are so very unlikely that you can ignore the possibility of their happening in a million lifetimes.)

Surely it is not logic that made people take comfort in the story of a man who healed the sick, raised the dead, and performed miracles in the name of God, wandered around from one end of the middle east to the other gathering his followers and teaching all who would listen, was executed because the movement he started angered the authorities, and later rose from the dead and was seen alive again by his disciples. It's fine if you choose to believe it, though, all logic aside. Still logic has to be left aside to believe in that, since regular experience runs counter to the fantastic elements of that story.

You may also believe in Jesus, who's life (we read) was also very similar to that described above. It's certainly not "logic" that leads you conclude that the man described in the last paragraph (Apollonius of Tyana) is some sort of fiction made up by his crazy followers, whereas Jesus is *real,* it's just preference.

[Vkothii]

Sorry but logic isn't claiming that apes can turn into humans.Nor is claiming that Darwin said that we're apes that changed into humans.

We're still apes, you dumb ape. When did we stop being primates?

Since you weren't born when your mother's great-great-grandfather was buried, how do you know he existed? How can you be sure?
Logically, since you can never prove your mother had a great-great-grandfather, you cannot prove that you or your mother exist, since most of your ancestors aren't around to say so??

[James R]

At last! Some answers to my questions!

Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

1) That the earth was created from water and by water

How, exactly?

2) That God created the earth
3) How long it took God to create the earth

How long did it take?

4) Why the sun just happens to be positioned the exact distance away from the earth to sustain life on earth

Why? Tell me.

5) The purpose for the stars and moon

What are their purposes?

6) How man was created and why

How was man created, exactly? Please list the steps in detail.

And why?

7) Why the flesh and bones of man decay into dust

Why do they?

8) How and why animals & humans each reproduce themselves and not other animals

This discussion is already happening in another thread.

8) How the earth and all living things will end

How will they end?

9) What happens after humans die

What happens?

10) That there is a God and who He is

Who is He?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Oh FFS…

I see Scifourms has a brand new idiot troll. This would be a perfect opportunity to exercise some common sense and practicality and BAN the troll now before he/she/it manages to whip up numerous shit storms. This is clearly its intension. Why should we let it? Why should we put up with it?

Can the moderators PLEASE be pro-active for once and do us all a real solid. Yeah?

[James R]

I'm actually interested in all these answers the Creationists apparently have for the above questions.

I hope that Carico, as an expert in such things, will be able to enlighten us all.

[Carico]

Logic is not limited to things you see yourself.

Then by your reasoning, Jesus is Lord because we say so since we don't have to have witnesses of his life and death. But we DO have witnesses! :)

But no one has ever witnessed an ape turning into a human, nor is it logical since each species reproduces itself in reality, nor have any ancient peoples passed along accounts of our ape ancestors. :D So evolution is a total and complete fairy tale since it can't be verified by logic, witnesses or reality. In fact, it's an embarrassment to mankind that so many people can be so easily duped into believing a theory as bizarre and impossible as evolution is, simply because they believe the letters after someone's name. And that's precisely why no one knows who the common ancestor is, or the first speaking man because they're as imaginary as the fable itself it. Sorry. ;)

[JDawg]

Funny, considering that Creationists used to "know" that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

And what the hell does "from water and by water" mean? That's not how the Earth was formed.

[Enterprise-D]

I'd love to hear the creationists' knowledge of the purpose of stars.

[Enterprise-D]

Just fixing that for you ;)

LOL!!!

[Carico]

Funny, considering that Creationists used to "know" that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

And what the hell does "from water and by water" mean? That's not how the Earth was formed.

So where in the bible does it say, "The sun revolved around the earth?" Creationists have always know that the earth is round unlike scientists who didn't know that until they Middle Ages. ;)

Oh yes the earth was formed out of water and by water. In fact the sky separates the water above the sky from the water below the sky. But since scientists only believe what they can see, (except of course when predicting the future or imagining the past) they of course don't know that. ;) The surface of the earth is composed of 70% water and 30% land. The human body is composed of 80% water and most animals gestate in water. So water is the life-producing source.;)

[Harro]

OH the witnesses whose stories a were written in a book about 100 years after the event?
Why did not god write the book him/her self?

Without evolution the planet would be dead or neer lifeless long ago. Unless all species lived on this planet at the same time. In which case not all living creatures have become extinct yet? Maybe your god replaced the extinct speices with new ones?

Science theory becomes stronger with more evidence. If new evidence is found to dispute a threory it is debunked or the theory evolves into a new theory to fit the evidence.

There is evidence to suport evolution, including fossils, DNA heredity,Atomic decay like carbon dating. The supporting evidence makes evolution theory stronger and more believable.

The point is if a new threory can explain why there is no evolution and it is suported by evidence and new evidence that debunks the old theory, then people adopt and adapt the new threory. Pretty much in the same way evolution works :)

[Enterprise-D]

So where in the bible does it say, "The sun revolved around the earth?" Creationists have always know that the earth is round unlike scientists who didn't know that until they Middle Ages. ;)


From the Wik article on Galileo:

"Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."

It is on passages such as these that christianity of old demanded that everyone accept that the sun revolved around the earth.

I thought Galileo's fight with the Vatican was well known?


Oh yes the earth was formed out of water and by water. In fact the sky separates the water above the sky from the water below the sky. But since scientists only believe what they can see, (except of course when predicting the future or imagining the past) they of course don't know that. ;) The surface of the earth is composed of 70% water and 30% land. The human body is composed of 80% water and most animals gestate in water. So water is the life-producing source.;)

You have proven nothing with this statement other than there's a lot of water. And you've done so quoting well known scientific observation, rather than anything in the bible.

[OilIsMastery]

Hilarious this thread got moved. If my scientific falsehoods were threatened by metaphysical truth, I would move the thread too.

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise D,

His question was; So where in the bible does it say, "The sun revolved around the earth?"

You have yet to provide an answer.

jan.

[rpenner]

What a sad day it is for Christianity when the idolatry of biblical so-called literalism is being promoted as an alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning.

But, even with regards to Creationism, the bible has two creation stories. At least one of them must be untruthful.

World-centric, man and woman created at the same time, no garden of Eden, plants on the land created before lights in sky, Sabbath.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1-2:3%20;&version=31;)

Man-centric, man created first, man created before plants, garden of Eden created before other plants, no Sabbath.
Genesis 2:4-3:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:4-3:21;&version=31;)

The rocks tell us the order was lights in the heavens, then plants on the land, then man and woman, which is a third story without evidence of divine action, magic or talking snakes. There may have been divine action and magic and talking snakes, but then apparently evidence for the above does not fossilize well. The rocks give a very detailed history and show that some species which flourished for very long periods of time are not with us, and that new species would arise, similar to preexisting forms but distinct. The rocks also show that rocks from the sky fall from time to time, like the thing that made the crater near the Yucatan.

The pattern of life we see today shows a great deal of relatedness. In fact the tool we use to solve the “Solomon problem” of true parentage is one of the same tools we use to demonstrate this common descent. Furthermore, all the tools, from rocks to DNA show the same pattern. And while rocks and DNA won’t give use exact dates like “The second Thursday of March, 24,040,288 BC” they agree roughly on the same timeline.

Just like the bible’s two different stories show that it contradicts itself, and is unreliable in some respects, the story of the rocks and the DNA could be proven wrong if it contradicted itself. If a human skeleton was found in rocks prior to the K-T boundary, if trilobites were found after the K-T boundary, if there was a fossil of a monkey with feathers or a mammal with a wholly exotic RNA transcription code, if any of these happened it would prove that common descent can’t be the end-all answer to the diversity of forms. But buried in the DNA of every creationist is a genetic mark which exactly resembles the ends of two different ape chromosomes spliced haphazardly together, demonstrating that ape and man had a common ancestor.

Matthew 5:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:30;&version=31;) strongly suggests that if biblical literalism is harmful to one, then it must be discarded.

(Thank you to the producers of Expelled (http://www.expelledexposed.com/) for supporting this research.)

[EmptyForceOfChi]

This thread is jokes, I don't have any input though sorry, I am above this level of debate.



peace.

[spidergoat]

So where in the bible does it say, "The sun revolved around the earth?" Creationists have always know that the earth is round unlike scientists who didn't know that until they Middle Ages. ;)

...

So water is the life-producing source.;)

Actually, the pagan Greeks knew the Earth was round back to the 6th century BC, and the Indians possibly before that. There were no actual scientists in the Middle Ages, since the scientific method had not been invented. However, much of what people learned towards the end of the Middle Ages was derived from ancient Greek texts, preserved by the Muslims.

Also, scientists can use deductive reasoning to learn things beyond what they can personally witness.

I happen to agree with you that water is the life-giving source, but that doesn't leave anything for God to do.

[Anti-Flag]

Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

1) That the earth was created from water and by water
2) That God created the earth
3) How long it took God to create the earth
4) Why the sun just happens to be positioned the exact distance away from the earth to sustain life on earth
5) The purpose for the stars and moon
6) How man was created and why
7) Why the flesh and bones of man decay into dust
8) How and why animals & humans each reproduce themselves and not other animals
8) How the earth and all living things will end
9) What happens after humans die
10) That there is a God and who He is

That's just the tip of the iceberg of what creationists know. Scientists know NONE of the above which is why they're constantly exploring and always will continue to do so. ;)

Ok, so answer me this;

If I open my closet am I going to find my favourite shirt? Just thought I'd ask before I look because you seem to fucking know everything.

[Carico]

What a sad day it is for Christianity when the idolatry of biblical so-called literalism is being promoted as an alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning.


"Fact-based" reasoning? So where has anyone ever observed a monkey turn into a human? :eek: NOWHERE. So not only is that not a fact, it's not even logical. :rolleyes:

Where has anyone ever observed the world covered in ice? Nowhere. So you need to learn the difference between facts and the imagination. ;)

[Carico]

Ok, so answer me this;

If I open my closet am I going to find my favourite shirt? Just thought I'd ask before I look because you seem to fucking know everything.

Sounds like jealousy to me. ;) I don't get mad at scientists who claim to be omniscient enough to disagree with God on how the world was created and how man was formed and what happened billions of years before they were born. I don't get mad at them because I know they're not omniscient enough to know those things. So why do you get mad at me...unless you know I'm right? ;)

So since only God knows everything, then whenever I agree with God I'm always right. And if you want to be right too, then all you have to do is agree with God. But if you always want to be wrong, then all you have to do is disagree with God. It's that simple. :)

[spidergoat]

Since when has anyone ever observed God? Face it, it's not a fact, just your imagination. :p

[rpenner]

I wrote:
What a sad day it is for Christianity when the idolatry of biblical so-called literalism is being promoted as an alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning.
Only to see a demonstration of the alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning:
"Fact-based" reasoning? So where has anyone ever observed a monkey turn into a human? :eek: NOWHERE. So not only is that not a fact, it's not even logical. :rolleyes: Using that definition of "fact" nothing in the Bible is a fact. But it's a poor definition of "fact" that would require me to produce an eyewitness for every event in history. And the reasoning is nowhere to be found in your post, only empty rhetoric.

And while I didn't mention monkeys, I did compare your DNA to that of apes, which is a clear assertion of fact. That fact either has to be explained in the context of a comprehensive scientific theory or shown to be in error. You did neither.

Where has anyone ever observed the world covered in ice? Nowhere.Well, I don't think anyone is asserting that the world was covered in ice in the roughly 2 million years of human presence. While certainly much of Europe and North America was covered with glaciers in that time frame, I neither brought this up nor did I confuse the greatly expanded glaciers to "the world".

But in those areas of Europe and North America (at least) are features which only the action of large ice sheets can explain.

So you need to learn the difference between facts and the imagination. ;) Well for one, the facts are immutable and self-consistent for we all live in the same universe. Facts exists independent of ones belief or acceptance of them. And the Bible is a work of the imagination which is why it is self-contradictory. And the Bible as it exists in many peoples minds is also imaginary since people disagree as to its core message and the details of that message.

But, you didn't even begin to address even an imaginary way in which those two different creation stories should be reconciled, thus my point remains unsullied:
At least one of them must be untruthful.

[Carico]

Using that definition of "fact" nothing in the Bible is a fact. But it's a poor definition of "fact" that would require me to produce an eyewitness for every event in history. And the reasoning is nowhere to be found in your post, only empty rhetoric.

Oh really? then what's the real history of the Jews? I'd love to hear your account of their history from your imagination. It appears that you believe that the Jews did nothing but sit on the ground all day and make up a fictitious history of their ancestors. :D Sorry, friend, but the history of the Jews is no different than the history of any other nation. So all you have to do is visit Israel to see that the same towns mentioned in the bible still exist today and they all have a history. So you need to base your claims on research rather than your imagination. :rolleyes:

And while I didn't mention monkeys, I did compare your DNA to that of apes, which is a clear assertion of fact. That fact either has to be explained in the context of a comprehensive scientific theory or shown to be in error. You did neither.

So why don't humans ever breed baby apes? Or don't you know? :eek: Sorry friend, but claiming that we have ape DNA is as imaginary as claiming that we have alien DNA. So look at my last post in the evolution thread in Biology and genetics to see why animal and human DNA is similar and it has NOTHING to do with animals & humans being able to breed each other as offspring. Evolutionists are one of the most confused bunch of people that ever walked the earth.

But in those areas of Europe and North America (at least) are features which only the action of large ice sheets can explain.

Forests can explain that the earth was once covered with trees as well. So looking at ice-bergs and imagining they once covered the earth is as imaginary as looking at a forest and imagining they once covered the earth as well. The imagination is not evidence. Sorry.

[Anti-Flag]

Sounds like jealousy to me. ;) I don't get mad at scientists who claim to be omniscient enough to disagree with God on how the world was created and how man was formed and what happened billions of years before they were born. I don't get mad at them because I know they're not omniscient enough to know those things. So why do you get mad at me...unless you know I'm right? ;)
I don't see the point being mad at trolls. Although if you're actually serious I do pity you. After finding your nonsensical blissful ignorance highly amusing of course.

So since only God knows everything, then whenever I agree with God I'm always right. And if you want to be right too, then all you have to do is agree with God. But if you always want to be wrong, then all you have to do is disagree with God. It's that simple. :)
That's what every religion says, and yet they can't even agree amongst themselves. God seems a little confused. What kind of god gets confused?

[spidergoat]

Oh really? then what's the real history of the Jews? ...
It's all called history, but that doesn't make it all equally factual. Modern archeological research indicates that there was no exodus from Egypt. I think the Jews did sit around and make up stories about their history, remember, they had no TV.


So why don't humans ever breed baby apes? Or don't you know?
Science does not predict that they would. Humans are a rather special kind of ape with bipedal walking and a large brain. The transition between the common ancestor of both chimps and man, and modern humans took an estimated 5 million years.


:eek: Sorry friend, but claiming that we have ape DNA is as imaginary as claiming that we have alien DNA.
Our DNA sequence contains many similarities with that of apes, more than that of any other animal on Earth.

So look at my last post in the evolution thread in Biology and genetics to see why animal and human DNA is similar and it has NOTHING to do with animals & humans being able to breed each other as offspring.
They cannot produce viable offspring (at least, no one has tried it to my knowledge), that is the definition of separate species.

Evolutionists are one of the most confused bunch of people that ever walked the earth.
Projection on your part. You are ignorant and try to make up for it with arrogance.

Forests can explain that the earth was once covered with trees as well. So looking at ice-bergs and imagining they once covered the earth is as imaginary as looking at a forest and imagining they once covered the earth as well. The imagination is not evidence. Sorry.
Agreed, imagination is not evidence. But, evidence is evidence. Glaciers make distinct impressions on the landscape they travel over. Such indications are found where today there are no glaciers. The conclusion is that there was once a climate that could be called an Ice Age.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

My Uncle : Do you believe you came from monkeys?
Me : Do you believe you came from dirt?

[nova900]

Oh really? then what's the real history of the Jews? I'd love to hear your account of their history from your imagination. It appears that you believe that the Jews did nothing but sit on the ground all day and make up a fictitious history of their ancestors. :D Sorry, friend, but the history of the Jews is no different than the history of any other nation. So all you have to do is visit Israel to see that the same towns mentioned in the bible still exist today and they all have a history. So you need to base your claims on research rather than your imagination. :rolleyes:
.

UNBIASED research is the key. In other words don't trust one source that claims they are a "chosen people" and believe their accounts to be completely truthfull.People who promote themselves as better than all else are apt to embellish their own history to make it appear more grandiose than it actually was.

[Michael]

Just fixing that for you ;)Haaa! :D

[Pandaemoni]

Then by your reasoning, Jesus is Lord because we say so since we don't have to have witnesses of his life and death.

Religion may have addled you, son. Logic does not require that you have seen things with your own eyes to accept them. Using logic to parse what that means though, you *cannot* conclude that we should believe in anything whatsoever. You don't need to see it, but you do need compelling evidence in order for it to be logical to believe in a thing.

Unfortunately I do not think the Bible's truth meets that test.

But we DO have witnesses! :)

The gospel authors, most scholars agree, were not witnesses. So what we have is not "witnesses" it's "hearsay" we know a guy who claims he knows a guy who saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion. That is evidence of His having risen, it's just not very compelling. The only evidence we have for the resurrection is hearsay, some of which may be hearsay. Eyewitnesses are notorious bad evidence, hearsay is a few steps worse than that.

But no one has ever witnessed an ape turning into a human,

No one witnessed the formation of the earth either, but I am reasonably confident it exists. Now, you may be thinking "God witnessed it" and from your perspective, right you are, but invoking an unwitnessed being (so far as anyone can prove) to witness an otherwise unwitnessed event is ludicrous. Or, better yet:

But no one has ever witnessed an ape turning into a human,

God did. So did Vishnu, so I have two witnesses. Case closed.

nor is it logical since each species reproduces itself

This is so illogical that I am now convinced you are not serious. This is a logical fallacy, a kind of "begging the question." Let's assume that you observe an ATM. You see the ATM spit out $20 bills over and over and over. One day you see a friend upset claiming that the machine shortchanged him by giving him a $10 bill. Would you claim that it is illogical for him to believe he received a $10 bill on the grounds that, so far as you've seen, ATM's only produce $20s? Apparently you would.

If you assume species only produce themselves, then it becomes impossible for them to produce anything else. But species do not produce themselves exactly. They produce something that is in general like themselves, but that if (at least slightly) different from the parent. That is even true of asexual reproducers, but it is obvious enough that you are not an identical clone of either of your parents.

Imagine that your parents were born into (and well adapted to) of hot and moist environment, but as an adult you find that you have been transported to the Arctic with your people. There it is cold and arid, and there is not much direct sunlight. Under selective pressure you'd have to be an idiot to think that your offspring would not better adapt to the cold. What changes about them are the relative levels of expression of different genes, and over long periods of time the genes themselves.

The question is: why do you believe there is a magic and invisible line? Species can change this much, but no more? What stops them? God? He'd have to, as there is no know biochemical brake on the process on mutation and natural selection. Imagine that through this process our genes could change 0.2% different from our distant ancestors and never more...okay that likely is within the same species. What if the limit is 5%? How do you know it isn't? You know whose DNA is 95% the same as ours? Chimpanzees.

That no one ever saw it is irrelevant because the other evidence is compelling. Again it's not just wild speculation. Once upon a time it was just speculation, but the precise kinds of evidence that Darwin predicted we would find, like the transition fossils, have been found. Evidence that Darwin would never have dreamed of, like DNA, tracked what we would expect too. For example, chimps and man: very similar DNA. Man and monkeys: less similar, but still close. And you can cross compare with any species (including plants) and the level of variation lines up nicely with what you'd expect. Moreover you can do that between any two species and it lines up well.

Worse for your side, if God designed us, He sucks at designing. Women's narrow hips greatly increase the risks of death in childbirth because of our wide skulls. Our knees and hips are terrible and prone to injury because they are not well adapted to bipedal motion, in the sense that there are improvements that seem somewhat obvious to a number of people, and God missed them or built them in intentionally. (In that sense, i see modern humans as a transition fossil...not quite perfectly adapted to bipedal motion yet.) Our brains fail us as we age. Why? God couldn't design a better memory system? We are prone to countless genetic anomalies, many of which can kill us as small children, before we can possibly have accepted Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior. The human body is a marvel overall, but on an item by item level, you have to concede there's room for improvement.

So near as I can tell the only response to the infirmities of the human body and the illnesses to which we are subject is: "God works in mysterious ways." But that's a cop out. If you hired a roofer and he fixed up 95% of your roof, doing an amazing job, and let the rain leak in through the holes he put in the remaining 5%, you would not accept, "Roofers' work in mysterious ways," as an excuse for his bad work product.

Sure, apes don't give birth to men, that is irrelevant as no one ever said they did. Apes do give birth to *very* slightly more erect walking apes, those apes sometimes do the same, and their offspring may do the sale, over and over with each generation advancing the ball more than they backtrack (in certain lines of descent at least). In the course of eons, some ape who *very nearly* walks-upright give birth to an ape who walks truly upright, albeit it stresses on their hips and knee joints, as those may still not be perfectly adapted to bipedalism.

nor have any ancient peoples passed along accounts of our ape ancestors.

Ancient peoples did not see God's formation of the Earth, so I suppose that makes their account of it in Genesis a...a...

What are the words I am looking for? Where you write about something that you never saw and never happened, but sounded like a neat story to the author...it's on the tip of my tongue...

total and complete fairy tale

THAT'S it! Thanks so much.

since it can't be verified by logic

It can and has.

, witnesses

Neither can your God

or reality.

Says the man who believe in a magic boat that's big enough to hold two of every animal (where did Noah get polar bears and platypuses? Not to mention the 5 to 8 million different species of beetle...he must have had a separate ark just for the beetles)

In fact, it's an embarrassment to mankind that so many people can be so easily duped into believing a theory as bizarre and impossible as evolution is,

But carpenters who can turn water into wine and convert bread into his own flesh, you're cool with that? That's all true? A god who kills 42 small children because they sass his favorite priest by making fun of his being bald? No, no, not only kills them, but has them savaged by "she bears"? You are not embarrassed by that? Bible stories that expect a thinking human being to believe that Moses created a magical brass serpent that, if you just saw it rendered you immune to snake venom, or better, that Jonah was swallowed by and lived inside a whale, sitting and praying inside its stomach for three days?

How many Israelites wandered in the Sinai? You know we can find archaeological evidence of small encampments of groups as small as 10-20 travelers in that desert, and there is no serious physical evidence of a group as large as the Bible supposes ever having wandered there, let alone for 40 years.

You accept these stories on faith and that's fine, as logic and empiricism is nit the end all and be all path in epistemology, but don't pretend that the logic and evidence are on your side, because it makes you look dumb.

And that's precisely why no one knows who the common ancestor is, or the first speaking man because they're as imaginary as the fable itself it. Sorry. ;)

Yes, I prefer my fable based on empirical evidence to yours based on faith in a Magic Story Book that is never wrong. :D

[rpenner]

Ancient peoples did not see God's formation of the Earth, so I suppose that makes their account of it in Genesis a...a...

What are the words I am looking for? Where you write about something that you never saw and never happened, but sounded like a neat story to the author...it's on the tip of my tongue... total and complete fairy tale THAT'S it! Thanks so much.

Suggested correction: "their accounts of it in Genesis"

I have no problem with a book having two different stories depicting the same event if they are allegorical and meant to teach a lesson, but you can't have two factual stories telling about the one-time creation of men, plants and lights in the heavens and tell them in a different order. Since they are happening in the same place, order is immutable. So the problem which is unique to the biblical literalist is how can both be true at once?

I submit that they can't both be true and this is an intentional warning sticker not to fall into the anti-intellectual trap of beliving that the Bible is literally true.

http://www.encyclopediaofstupid.com/stupid/images/8/8e/BibleWarningLabel.jpg

[Carico]

I have no problem with a book having two different stories depicting the same event if they are allegorical and meant to teach a lesson, but you can't have two factual stories telling about the one-time creation of men, plants and lights in the heavens and tell them in a different order. Since they are happening in the same place, order is immutable.

There aren't two different stories. There's only one story. genesis 1 tells us that God created men, women and animals and Genesis 2 tells us how God did it. So all you have to look at is the order in genesis 1.;)

[spidergoat]

Nobody saw God write that, so it must be someone's imagination.

[rpenner]

There aren't two different stories. There's only one story. genesis 1 tells us that God created men, women and animals and Genesis 2 tells us how God did it. So all you have to look at is the order in genesis 1.;) Unlike a novel, the author of Genesis did not supply the chapter marks you speak of. Catholics, Protestents and Jews chop up these books in various manners, because their orginal form is not interrupted. http://documents.fuller.edu/ministry/berean/chs_vss.htm But reading, the Genesis 1 story continues into first verses of chapter 2 and the the second story flows seemlessly into chapter 3 and both discuss the order of these things. (Links are active if you don't have a Bible nearby.) But, even with regards to Creationism, the bible has two creation stories. At least one of them must be untruthful.

World-centric, man and woman created at the same time, no garden of Eden, plants on the land created before lights in sky, Sabbath.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1-2:3%20;&version=31;)

Man-centric, man created first, man created before plants, garden of Eden created before other plants, no Sabbath.
Genesis 2:4-3:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:4-3:21;&version=31;)

[Pandaemoni]

Oh really? then what's the real history of the Jews? I'd love to hear your account of their history from your imagination. It appears that you believe that the Jews did nothing but sit on the ground all day and make up a fictitious history of their ancestors. :D Sorry, friend, but the history of the Jews is no different than the history of any other nation. So all you have to do is visit Israel to see that the same towns mentioned in the bible still exist today and they all have a history. So you need to base your claims on research rather than your imagination. :rolleyes:

There is plenty of evidence that the Jews are, in fact, an offshoot of the Canaanites that developed in that region rather than emigrating there. I think you need to do more research, and outside the Bible this time.

In fact, well before the archeological record established that the Hewbrews esisted at all, the Ugarit Canaanites worshipped the god El (also known as Eloah) who had 70 sons, each of whom rules a nation. Eloah and his many sons were called Elohim. One of the sons of El was a deity named "Yahweh". (Other sons of El included Baal, Dagon and othes who made appearances in the Bible.) Eventually the Canaanite tradition split and Yahweh rose to prominence in certain regions (as a sort of patron deity), while El retained his overall rulership in the Ugarit patheon.

Not only is biological evolution true, but so is cultural evolution. The monotheist Jews did not arise through some divine inspiration of a single person, but show clear development from the pre-existing Canaanite traditions, especially those derived from Ugarit.

See, e.g., http://phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.html or search around, as there are no shortage of sources on the topic.

As for town names being the same as they were in the Bible...wht does that prove? I mean when Washington Irving wrote his A History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty, under the pseudonym Diedrich Knickerbocker, there was no doubt to anyone that he was making up a fictional history of New York out of his imagination but OMG HE GOT THE STREET NAMES RIGHT IT MUST BE ALL TRUE!!!!11!!! He even got some details right about the city before he was born, part guess-work, part knowing the city well. If the Jews were constructing a mythological past for themselves, as the Greeks did with the Illiad, the Romans with the Aeneid, and the Finns did with the Kalevala, of course they'll use real place names that they know and names that they have heard in legends (that may be based on real names or not).

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

WHY do SOME people come to believe The Holy Babble & others believe The Holy Queeran & others believe Bubbism???

[Michael]

WHY do SOME people come to believe The Holy Babble & others believe The Holy Queeran & others believe Bubbism???don't forget Scientology :)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

don't forget Scientology :)

I didn't. I didn't want to make that post 11 pages long so I only mentioned those as examples.

[scorpius]

"Fact-based" reasoning? So where has anyone ever observed a monkey turn into a human? NOWHERE. So not only is that not a fact, it's not even logical.
where does anyone besides CRETINISTS claim thats how humans evolved?

lay off the buyBULL and learn the facts of life
here
www.talkorigins.org



Where has anyone ever observed the world covered in ice? Nowhere. So you need to learn the difference between facts and the imagination.
YOU sure do..:D
and here

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Creationism.htm

[Carico]

You have proven nothing with this statement other than there's a lot of water. And you've done so quoting well known scientific observation, rather than anything in the bible.

Sorry, but it's not scientists who are using these observations. It's scientists who are ignoring them just like they ignore the accounts of over 200 cultures and the bible which says there was a global flood. That's why they make up their own version of the past that no one in history can document. Again, that's the definition of fairy tales. ;)

[James R]

It's ironic that this thread is entitled "What creationists know", but when I ask a creationist what creationists know he is unable to tell me.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Does his constant use of winking smileys after a statement annoy anybody else or is it just me?.


peace.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

A ;) means I'm right & you're wrong so just capitulate. ;)
Resistance is futile. ;)

This line would have been 8 winking smileys but it wouldn't allow that.

[shaman_]

Does his constant use of winking smileys after a statement annoy anybody else or is it just me?.
No, it's annoying.

Some people think using smilies a lot makes up for the lack of a coherent argument.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

A ;) means I'm right & you're wrong so just capitulate. ;)
Resistance is futile. ;)

This line would have been 8 winking smileys but it wouldn't allow that.



No, it's annoying.

Some people think using smilies a lot makes up for the lack of a coherent argument.


I think your both right maybe, a little from A a little from B. Thank god for the 3 smileys a post rule.

All I know is the winks are annoying.

peaace.

[Carico]

Some people think using smilies a lot makes up for the lack of a coherent argument.

And personal attacks don't refute my posts. So you cannot prove I don't have a coherent argument, smilies or not. ;)

[Bells]

Does his constant use of winking smileys after a statement annoy anybody else or is it just me?.


peace.
It's Sarah Palin in disguise.


There aren't two different stories. There's only one story. genesis 1 tells us that God created men, women and animals and Genesis 2 tells us how God did it. So all you have to look at is the order in genesis 1.
So why can't you answer the questions that were asked about your OP?

And do you really think the author's of the bible would have written what they did write if they had the ability to actually study and investigate facts like evolution, the birth of starts and planets, etc?

Let me ask you a question. When you are ill.. have a bacterial infection for a example. Do you pray it away? Or do you rely on the science you are currently mocking to get some antibiotics to treat said infection? How about when you have a headache?

While you might believe the world is a few thousand years of age, that God created everything, blah creationist babble, blah, it is all well and good for you. That you prefer to ignore direct scientific evidence, many of which you can actually still observe, about the birth of our universe, the birth of stars, etc, that you choose to ignore DNA evidence that links us to primates... well.. that is your choice. More power to you man..

[Norsefire]

WHY do SOME people come to believe The Holy Babble & others believe The Holy Queeran & others believe Bubbism???

Why are people so immature they mock other peoples' beliefs?

[Medicine*Woman]

The gospel authors, most scholars agree, were not witnesses. So what we have is not "witnesses" it's "hearsay" we know a guy who claims he knows a guy who saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion.
*************
M*W: I just wanted to throw in a few comments on your post.

As you know, I like to put an astro-theological slant on some of your statements (all good).

These "witnesses" who were said to have told others, who were said they saw Jesus (the sun-son) after the crucifixion, were observing the astrological movements of the zodiac. The crucifix refers to the two crossed imaginary lines to the four seasons of the year as the earth moves around the sun. I had expanded on the details of this, but it was too long, and I am too tired.

That is evidence of His having risen, it's just not very compelling.
*************
M*W: You're right. These lines forming a cross were viewed as the four seasons of the year which includes (March-April-May)(June-July-August)(Sept. Oct. Nov.)(Dec.-Jan.-Feb.) This entire reference to the crucifixion was totally astro-theological. As I've said many times before, it was a hidden message in the NT which is the message of the zodiac. I hope I haven't lost you yet.

That is even true of asexual reproducers, but it is obvious enough that you are not an identical clone of either of your parents.
*************
M*W: Glad you brought that up as an aside. A clone is not a clone in not a clone. A clone isn't truly identical to it's host either. Maybe their are slight variations, but they are not exactly identical. I read this in scientific literature when I was teaching Stem Cells in Biomedicine.

But carpenters who can turn water into wine and convert bread into his own flesh, you're cool with that? That's all true?
*************
M*W: There is metaphor for carpenter, and as I recall, it referred to the builder, it means the creator (aka God-the-Sun/Son of God) of the zodiac. Especially since there is not much evidence for an appreciably amount of usable wood in the vacinity. Joseph the carpenter was a NT metaphor for vizier (an Egyptian title for something like mayor or protector). He was the son of Heli (the sun aka known as Jesus).

How many Israelites wandered in the Sinai? You know we can find archaeological evidence of small encampments of groups as small as 10-20 travelers in that desert, and there is no serious physical evidence of a group as large as the Bible supposes ever having wandered there, let alone for 40 years.
*************
M*W: The ancestors of the Israelites were known as the Habiru/Apiru who became the Hebrews. The habiru/apiru came out of Egypt, but S.A.M. will try to refute that. I've studied this a lot.

Your statement is correct that there were small encampments, but for god's sake, they were nomadic shepherds after all. That's why they did what they did. It was their lifestyle. They wandered in the cool of the night creating stories (i.e. myths) about the stars and constellations and named them. This was for their entertainment purposes only. They rested during the heat of the day.

The habiru/apiru were not slaves but simple shepherds (another metaphor for Jesus aka the sun). These nomads had the idea that to get close to these gods in the sky, they had to climb mountains and worship the zodiac way up there during the heat of the day.

If there was a Moses, he was the Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th dynasty. His given name at birth was Aminadab. When he was taken by his sister-mother (not a problem in those days), and the legend of pharaoh's daughter finding him and took him out of the water (definition of Moses), he was raised as pharaoh's son and was given the name after his real father, Tuthmosis IV. He also became to be known as Amenhotep IV when he became pharaoh himself, and renamed himself, Aknenaten. All one and the same.

He got into some trouble because of his fanatical religious belief in Aten, the sun god disk, and fled into the desert, because his subjects got tired of Moses's bullshit. He didn't take anyone with him, but they may have chased his ass into the Sinai. He may have camped in some of the small camps, but he led nobody nowhere. In fact, it wasn't even this guy who wrote the Torah. The Torah was written by some three anonymous authors who wrote of the death of Moses, so how could he have?

In the heat of the desert, I can understand how a dry bush would catch fire. I've seen it happen in my lifetime in the East USA as a child and to this very day in the West USA.
*************
M*W: I wanted to previously mention metaphors for the resurrection. The sun was believed by these nomads to go behind the earth and die, but then the sun was resurrected in the morning in the East, so god was seen to come alive again, and these nomads believed they witnessed it.

Also, there were no golden chariots found on the floor of the Red Sea nor the Sea of Reeds. These people didn't have to travel very far from where they shepherded. It was only about 30 miles from the promiscuous land. The parting of the whichever sea the myth refers to probably had a sand bank or was extremely salty, I would think.

Sorry for the long post. I got ahead of myself.

[Carico]

And do you really think the author's of the bible would have written what they did write if they had the ability to actually study and investigate facts like evolution, the birth of starts and planets, etc?

Considering that apes haven't given birth to human descendants since man has walked the earth, then the bible's claims are based on observation unlike the claims of evolutionists. So sorry, investigation doesn't lead to evolution. Only the imaginations of men can lead to evolution.

So when were scientists around when the first stars came int the sky?:eek: They weren't. So they can only guess how they got there. But God doesn't have to guess since he put them there to begin with. ;)

[Medicine*Woman]

There aren't two different stories. There's only one story. genesis 1 tells us that God created men, women and animals and Genesis 2 tells us how God did it. So all you have to look at is the order in genesis 1.;)
*************
M*W: I really, really wanted to answer your post, but it's not worth my time.

[Bells]

Considering that apes haven't given birth to human descendants since man has walked the earth, then the bible's claims are based on observation unlike the claims of evolutionists. So sorry, investigation doesn't lead to evolution. Only the imaginations of men can lead to evolution.

Of course. And saying that some great daddy in the sky made man from clay is so much more believable. How wrong I have been.

One little question though. Who observed God creating the universe, Earth, man, animals and all that comes in between? Don't forget, no one was around at the time to observe all of this. So how exactly are the claims in the bible based on observation?

Oh, and by the way. Man did not descend from the apes that you see in zoos or on wildlife documentaries. We share DNA with them, which points to a common ancestor. Therefore, you won't see apes of today giving birth to humans.


So when were scientists around when the first stars came int the sky?:eek: They weren't. So they can only guess how they got there. But God doesn't have to guess since he put them there to begin with. ;)
Visit a planetarium. We can still observe stars being created today through things called telescopes. So we don't exactly have to "guess".

[swarm]

Hercules Rockefeller: Can the moderators PLEASE be pro-active for once and do us all a real solid. Yeah?

Unfortunately proactive moderation is censorship.

There should always be a transgression first, and hopefully at least some period of warning/education, before a moderator acts percipitously.

[swarm]

Carico:
Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

You are mistaken. You "know" these things only as being found in your holy book. But for you to know them about the earth and universe you would need to demonstrate how the claims of your book actually correspond with reality.

This you haven't done and when people have attempted this they find the facts of the situation contradict your claims. Which is not surprising when you are relying on the myths of bronze age sheep herders for your foundational assumptions about reality.

Scientists know NONE of the above which is why they're constantly exploring and always will continue to do so.

Actually scientists are constantly exploring because its terribly interesting and a whole lot of fun, besides occasionally paying the bills. What do you gain from constantly failing to explore?

[swarm]

Carico: Sorry but logic isn't claiming that apes can turn into humans.

No one claims apes turn into humans. The claim is that apes and humans both share common ancestors. Just like you and your cousins can’t turn into each other, but share common ancestors.

[James R]

Creationists might know that stuff, but apparently Carico doesn't, because so far he has failed to answer a single one of my questions about what he claims creationists know.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Why are people so immature they mock other peoples' beliefs?

The pot calls the toilet black.

[Carico]

OH the witnesses whose stories a were written in a book about 100 years after the event?
Why did not god write the book him/her self?

Without evolution the planet would be dead or neer lifeless long ago. Unless all species lived on this planet at the same time. In which case not all living creatures have become extinct yet? Maybe your god replaced the extinct speices with new ones?

Science theory becomes stronger with more evidence. If new evidence is found to dispute a threory it is debunked or the theory evolves into a new theory to fit the evidence.

There is evidence to suport evolution, including fossils, DNA heredity,Atomic decay like carbon dating. The supporting evidence makes evolution theory stronger and more believable.

The point is if a new threory can explain why there is no evolution and it is suported by evidence and new evidence that debunks the old theory, then people adopt and adapt the new threory. Pretty much in the same way evolution works :)

God did write the bible. But since you don't know God, then of course you wouldn't know that. ;)

Sorry but identifying fossils is as subjective as looking at the leaves on a tree and speculating what they look like. :rolleyes:

[swarm]

Carico:God did write the bible.

Wow, for a god his writing skills suck.

[Carico]

Carico:God did write the bible.

Wow, for a god his writing skills suck.

They're much better than yours. At least He has a vocabulary longer than 4 letters. ;)

[SkinWalker]

God did write the bible. But since you don't know God, then of course you wouldn't know that.

What is the evidence that your god wrote it when all literary criticism of your bible shows that it was written (often poorly, sometimes poetically) by many people?

Sorry but identifying fossils is as subjective as looking at the leaves on a tree and speculating what they look like.

This statement is demonstrable of your ignorance and lack of education in paleontology. I'd be interested in your academic criticism of a typical journal article that utilizes seriation techniques and paleontological analyses to evaluate a fossiliferous strata. I'd like to see how you demonstrate their analyses to be "subjective."

Shall I pick an article for your review? I can email you the PDF.

[Carico]

What is the evidence that your god wrote it when all literary criticism of your bible shows that it was written (often poorly, sometimes poetically) by many people?


For one thing; there are no contradictions in the bible. No human(s) has ever been able to write a book, especially one as long as the bible which was written over centuries by many different people and still no contradictions. But you have to be able to understand the bible before you'd know that. ;)

For another thing, no one has ever been able to refute the bible. Oh many have tried, but they end up having to admit their own scenarios about history can' be documented by reality or witnesses. ;)

[nova900]

God did write the bible. But since you don't know God, then of course you wouldn't know that. ;)

:


What I perceive as many spiritual truths in the bible and I see them in many belief systems other than christianity as well but the biggest problem with the bible is it's commentary by its mostly,if not all, unknown authors who created such a dogmatic, biased,exclusive mess which proves that God could not be the literal author of such confusion that has lead to hundreds of sects and divisions within just this one abrahamic religion.

[Steve100]

I'll give you one contradiction.
The devil is meant to be the evil one, yet I'm sure it's god that kills hundreds of thousands of times more people throughout the course of the book.

[Carico]

What I perceive as many spiritual truths and they can be seen in many belief systems other than christianity as well but the biggest problem with the bible is it's commentary by its mostly,if not all, unknown authors who created such a dogmatic, biased,exclusive mess which proves that God could not be the literal author of such confusion that has lead to hundreds of sects and divisions within just this one abrahamic religion.

Most of the authors are supposed to be unknown. That's because their knowledge didn't come from themselves. If it did, their claims would be as fallible as the claims in any human book. ;)

[swarm]

Carico:They're much better than yours. At least He has a vocabulary longer than 4 letters.

Wow, your math skills suck like god's writing. He rambles like a drunk, can't keep his story straight like a liar, and runs around in an insane rage then tries to kiss up like a typical abuser.

Are you sure you can't do better than that?

[SkinWalker]

For one thing; there are no contradictions in the bible. No human(s) has ever been able to write a book, especially one as long as the bible which was written over centuries by many different people and still no contradictions. But you have to be able to understand the bible before you'd know that.

Clearly, I understand your bible far better than you. I've read it several times and have actually bothered to compare it with other ancient texts, finding the similarities and origins for some of the biblical mythology.

You would, no doubt, persist in refuting my knowledge as real or valid since I don't blindly accept your biblical mythology as "truth" like you do, but this is an illogical and ignorant argument to begin with.

There are many contradictions in the bible, two of which are smacking you in the face on this very forum: evolution and global flood. Clearly, the bible's mythology regarding creation and flood are contradictory to what we actually know about the universe, but this isn't perhaps what you intended. Perhaps you meant contradictions within biblical mythology. There are many of those as well. I'm wondering how many you would require be mentioned before you retract your statement above, but since a logical and academic argument would only require one, that's what I'll give. If you successfully refute it, perhaps I'll present others.

Contradiction: the lineage of Jesus.
1) Matthew (1:6-7) states that Jesus' lineage is traced through David's son Solomon.
2) Luke (3:23-31) states that Jesus' lineage is traced through David's son Nathan.

1) In Matthew, the number of generations from Jesus to David is 28.
2) In Luke, the number of generations is 43

1) Matthew records Joseph's father as Jacob.
2) Luke cites Heli as Joesph's father.

Which is true? Matthew or Luke? The clearly contradict each other.

For another thing, no one has ever been able to refute the bible.

I just did. I've done so in many threads. However, none has probably been able to refute the bible that any blind cult follower would see with a head in the sand.

[Pete]

Don't worry, Carico.

If you close your eyes and want it to be true hard enough, you'll be able to convince yourself of anything!
And whatever you do, never examine the possibility that you're not right. Just be strong of faith, and you'll never have to cope with being wrong.

[Carico]

1) Matthew (1:6-7) states that Jesus' lineage is traced through David's son Solomon.
2) Luke (3:23-31) states that Jesus' lineage is traced through David's son Nathan.


Your statements show that you understand nothing in the bible. Look at the genealogies more closely. Matthew's genealogy is of heirs to the throne. Luke's genealogy is biological. Both are included to show that Jesus is both biologically and legally an heir to David's throne. ;)

So again, when you think you know better than God does, you'll always look foolish. The bible is the most detailed book ever written to the degree that most humans miss everything that's in there, like you just did. Thus, it could have only be written by God.

[Medicine*Woman]

God did write the bible. But since you don't know God, then of course you wouldn't know that. ;)
************
M*W: I've asked this question a few times before you arrived, but I have never received an answer. Maybe you can help. What language did God speak when he wrote the bible?

They're much better than yours. At least He has a vocabulary longer than 4 letters. ;)
*************
M*W: In what language is God's vocabulary. Nobody has been able to answer this question. I'm waiting for your answer.

For one thing; there are no contradictions in the bible. No human(s) has ever been able to write a book, especially one as long as the bible which was written over centuries by many different people and still no contradictions. But you have to be able to understand the bible before you'd know that. ;)

For another thing, no one has ever been able to refute the bible. Oh many have tried, but they end up having to admit their own scenarios about history can' be documented by reality or witnesses. ;)
*************
M*W: May I get you a stronger cup of Kool-Aid?

I'll give you one contradiction.
The devil is meant to be the evil one, yet I'm sure it's god that kills hundreds of thousands of times more people throughout the course of the book.
*************
M*W: My A-T take on this. The devil is called the Morningstar as was Jesus. The Morningstar is the sun as the name would imply (Jesus). The Morningstar is also the planet Venus, because Venus rises with the sun, and is also known as the son of god.

The Son of Man is the Sun.

Your statements show that you understand nothing in the bible. Look at the genealogies more closely. Matthew's genealogy is of heirs to the throne. Luke's genealogy is biological. Both are included to show that Jesus is both biologically and legally an heir to David's throne. ;)

So again, when you think you know better than God does, you'll always look foolish. The bible is the most detailed book ever written to the degree that most humans miss everything that's in there, like you just did. Thus, it could have only be written by God.
*************
M*W: The lights are on, but nobody's home.

[SkinWalker]

Your statements show that you understand nothing in the bible. Look at the genealogies more closely. Matthew's genealogy is of heirs to the throne. Luke's genealogy is biological. Both are included to show that Jesus is both biologically and legally an heir to David's throne.

Really? Which one of these myths state this? Luke or Matthew? Or is it another mythical text within the bible that clarifies this.

Even theologians admit this is problematic and yours is but one apologetics' attempt to explain it away. But, in the end, your explanation is an excuse to not have to face the fact that your doctrine is pure myth.

Your explanation is discarded since it has no verification. The contradiction still stands.

So again, when you think you know better than God does, you'll always look foolish.

When you accept prima facie that your god must be the right one, assuming that there's a god at all, you look foolish. Particularly when all you do is come up with lame, made-up excuses. Anyone can move the goal post. Show us the evidence for your claim about genealogy, your gods (Jesus, Yahweh, Elohim, Satan, the holy ghost, Mary, etc.). Because, for a cult that alleges itself to be "monotheistic," it sure has a lot of gods.

The bible is the most detailed book ever written to the degree that most humans miss everything that's in there, like you just did.

Complete and utter poppycock. This sort of hyperbole is to be expected, however, from unthinking believers blinded by indoctrination and brainwashed by dogma. The lack of critical thought is fascinating.

Thus, it could have only be written by God.

Right. Yep. You convinced me with your logical argumentation skillz [/sarcasm]

[Carico]

M*W: I've asked this question a few times before you arrived, but I have never received an answer. Maybe you can help. What language did God speak when he wrote the bible?


God spoke whatever language the person to whom he was speaking spoke. God actually created languages. But you wouldn't know that because you don't know His power through His spirit. But he's just like energy which is also invisible, only much more powerful, which scientists agree can never be created or destroyed which means that energy is as eternal as God is. So even scientists know there are invisible forces. ;)

Read the bible and you'll have answered your own question. Solomon is listed in Matthew's genealogy instead of Nathan who is listed in Luke's genealogy. Solomon was the next king down from David and Nathan was David's biological son. So MT.'s genealogy is heirs to the thrown and Luke's is biological.

When you accept prima facie that your god must be the right one, assuming that there's a god at all, you look foolish.

I can only look foolish to people who have no idea what happened in Jewish history just as I can look foolish to people who don't understand why apes can't breed human descendants. But to those people who know what happened in Jewish history, I can look as educated as they are. ;)

Sorry but you can't critique a book you don't understand. And since you've already shown your ignorance of the genealogies, then you're not qualified to say that the bible is wrong...especially when you have no clue what happened in Jewish history. :rolleyes:

[spidergoat]

There is a series of fossil finds (real objects, not written fiction) that represent a transition between a small-brained bipedal ape, and the gradually larger brained various Homo species that led to us (Homo sapiens). Sorry, but reality collides with creationist wishful thinking.:D

[Carico]

There is a series of fossil finds (real objects, not written fiction) that represent a transition between a small-brained bipedal ape, and the gradually larger brained various Homo species that led to us (Homo sapiens). Sorry, but reality collides with creationist wishful thinking.:D

:roflmao: You believe whatever you read in a science book because you never question their methods. So it's actually you who's being brainwashed unless you can look at science objectively instead of with blind faith. Interpreting fossils is as subjective as looking at leaves on a tree and imagining what they look like. So only when scientists are interested in looking at all sides of an issue instead of only what they want to see, will their methods be scientific. ;)

[SkinWalker]

I can only look foolish to people who have no idea what happened in Jewish history just as I can look foolish to people who don't understand why apes can't breed human descendants.
You're still making rhetorical comments with no supporting premises. This is not discussion but you preaching. Sorry, but as moderator, I must warn you that preaching isn't tolerated here at SciForums.

Please back your comments with data. If you're suggesting that I've made a comment that isn't consistent with Syro-Palestinian history, please cite it and attempt to correct it. If you're saying that humans aren't apes, then you're the ignorant one since humans are Homo sapiens sapiens and members of the superfamily Hominoidea and, thus, are apes. If you're suggesting that human evolution equates to one species literally giving birth to a new species in a single generation, then you're not only ignorant but stupid, since this isn't even close to what evolutionary theory describes.

Sorry but you can't critique a book you don't understand.

You have yet to demonstrate that your understanding of biblical mythology exceeds my own. More rhetorical nonsense.

And since you've already shown your ignorance of the genealogies, then you're not qualified to say that the bible is wrong...especially when you have no clue what happened in Jewish history.

You have yet to show that there isn't a contradiction. You gave us your hope and a made up explanation, but that explanation has no supporting facts. It is completely made up. Not a single passage says anything about your explanation of two genealogies and yet you believe it whole-heartedly because it fits your preconceived beliefs.

If you think you're the first to come along to SciForums that refuses to accept any data that doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs, think again.

[spidergoat]

:roflmao: You believe whatever you read in a science book because you never question their methods. So it's actually you who's being brainwashed unless you can look at science objectively instead of with blind faith. Interpreting fossils is as subjective as looking at leaves on a tree and imagining what they look like. So only when scientists are interested in looking at all sides of an issue instead of only what they want to see, will their methods be scientific. ;)

:roflmao: Actually, I do read rather critically. There is some interpretation in analyzing fossils, but these are in some cases, almost complete skeletons. They cannot be interpreted as something else. Perhaps some minor issues could be debated, but not the fact that ape-like humanoid creatures did live in Africa several million years ago.

[SkinWalker]

You believe whatever you read in a science book because you never question their methods. So it's actually you who's being brainwashed unless you can look at science objectively instead of with blind faith. Interpreting fossils is as subjective as looking at leaves on a tree and imagining what they look like. So only when scientists are interested in looking at all sides of an issue instead of only what they want to see, will their methods be scientific.

What are your data to support that the seriation and analyses of fossiliferous strata is a subjective process?

Is it only subjective because you want it to be? Or have you studied geology and paleontology and concluded through your own studies that the methodologies employed are "subjective?"

This is the type of ignorant and brainwashed rhetoric that the religious fanatics that go on and on about their "special creation" employ rather than sit down and refute the quantitative as well as qualitative analyses that exist in sciences like geology and paleontology.

There are clear, physical measurements that have allowed for prediction of what type of new fossil species will be located in which strata. And they are demonstrated time and time again. Yet your own limited and narrow education doesn't allow you to participate in true intellectual or academic discourse on the topic.

Instead, you rely on the "you just believe whatever the scientists say in a book" argument that is completely and utterly fallacious since you, if you aren't too lazy, can pick up the book and actually test the data.

I should say, if you aren't too lazy and too undereducated.

[spidergoat]

Sorry but until you know the history of the Jews, you have no clue what the difference between truth and mythology is. So sorry, but further conversation with someone as uneducated as you are won't be productive. :rolleyes:

No one knows the true complete history of the Jews. We can only be sure of facts that are corroborated by archeological evidence. Everything else should be treated most critically.

[Carico]

Actually, I do read rather critically. There is some interpretation in analyzing fossils, but these are in some cases, almost complete skeletons. They cannot be interpreted as something else. Perhaps some minor issues could be debated, but not the fact that ape-like humanoid creatures did live in Africa several million years ago.

:D So where is there a picture of a whole "humanoid" on a fossil? :eek: NOWHERE. So sorry, but interpretation is the sole criteria on which fossils are identified. :rolleyes:

[SkinWalker]

Why must there be a "picture" of a "whole 'humanoid"?

[spidergoat]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/selam.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/selam.html

[JDawg]

From the Wik article on Galileo:

"Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."

It is on passages such as these that christianity of old demanded that everyone accept that the sun revolved around the earth.

I thought Galileo's fight with the Vatican was well known?

And once again, we encounter a boisterous theist that doesn't even know the first thing about his own religion, let alone science. Wow. It really does boggle the mind. Thank you for putting that little man in his place, Enterprise. :D

[Carico]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/selam.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/selam.html

:roflmao:
Notice that's a fragmented skull pieced together from scattered fragments that could be more than one animal. Again, that's called artwork, not science. ;)

[spidergoat]

If you were buried for hundreds of thousands of years, you would not be in the best of shape either. Now you were presented with actual evidence of a hominid creature with human and ape features, but you would rather believe in a work of fiction. :shrug:

Unlike people with a total lack of any practical knowledge of what they criticize, scientists can tell the difference between the bones of a hominid and something else.

There are other, less fragmented ones:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/taung.jpg

This is Australopithecus africanus, about 2-3 million years old.

[spidergoat]

Australopithecus boisei, This find was a complete, intact cranium lacking only the teeth:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/406.jpg

[JDawg]

Why are we bothering with this douche? Ban him and let's move on. He's never going to contribute, he's only going to condescend, and he'll only serve to piss people off. You've all completely debunked his claims, and yet he continues to respond with insults and rhetoric.

Let's close it up and kick him out.

[Medicine*Woman]

Why must there be a "picture" of a "whole 'humanoid"?
*************
M*W: Am I missing something here? I didn't know there were cameras back then.

[Carico]

*************
M*W: Am I missing something here? I didn't know there were cameras back then.

No there weren't any more than you can find a whole fictitious "homo-sapiens" on a fossil. :D So again, the imagination is the name of the game for evolutionary scientists. Only the people of the ancient worlds never carried their imaginations as far as today's scientists do. ;)

[JDawg]

He's figured us out, boys. Time to pack up the fake fossils and head home...

[spidergoat]

Homo sapiens is a modern human!

[Carico]

He's figured us out, boys. Time to pack up the fake fossils and head home...

Yup. Since the imagination is considered evidence in the field of science, it's been long over due. ;)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Answer my question, Carico : Do you preach to animals?

[Medicine*Woman]

No there weren't any more than you can find a whole fictitious "homo-sapiens" on a fossil. :D So again, the imagination is the name of the game for evolutionary scientists. Only the people of the ancient worlds never carried their imaginations as far as today's scientists do. ;)
*************
M*W: What???

[Carico]

Answer my question, Carico : Do you preach to animals?

Do you talk to animals about science? :bugeye:

[Medicine*Woman]

Yup. Since the imagination is considered evidence in the field of science, it's been long over due. ;)
*************
M*W: Without imagination there would be no progress in science. Imagination, however, is not evidence. It is the seed that eventually brings the evidence.

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quotes (FAQ) of the Day:

"Must then a Christ perish in torment in every age to save those that have no imagination?" ~ George Bernard Shaw

*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:

"Imagination is the highest kite one can fly." ~ Lauren Bacall, b. 1924, American Actress

[Carico]

M*W: Without imagination there would be no progress in science. Imagination, however, is not evidence. It is the seed that eventually brings the evidence.


This is correct. However, when no evidence appears, then the theory is exposed as a myth. I just saw a documentary called "Clash of the Cavemen.' No, it wasn't produced by Steven Spielberg. It was considered a factual account of a neanderthal woman who was abducted. :bugeye: Now how anyone knew she was abducted is anyone's guess, nevertheless since the imagination is considered evidence in science, the show was considered a documentary. :rolleyes:

In this "documentary" scientists admitted that there isn't one ounce of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. Duh! Only scientists don't know why animal DNA can't get into human DNA, especially the DNA of fictitious animals. Nevertheless, scientists keep insisting that these fictitious creatures once turned into humans.

So myths die hard, long after the lack of evidence has been presented over and over and over again. :rolleyes: That's because the more arrogant one becomes, the further he has to fall when he finds out he was wrong.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Do you talk to animals about science? :bugeye:

Answer the question!

[Bells]

This is correct. However, when no evidence appears, then the theory is exposed as a myth. I just saw a documentary called "Clash of the Cavemen.' No, it wasn't produced by Steven Spielberg. It was considered a factual account of a neanderthal woman who was abducted. :bugeye: Now how anyone knew she was abducted is anyone's guess, nevertheless since the imagination is considered evidence in science, the show was considered a documentary. :rolleyes:

In this "documentary" scientists admitted that there isn't one ounce of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. Duh! Only scientists don't know why animal DNA can't get into human DNA, especially the DNA of fictitious animals. Nevertheless, scientists keep insisting that these fictitious creatures once turned into humans.

So myths die hard, long after the lack of evidence has been presented over and over and over again. :rolleyes: That's because the more arrogant one becomes, the further he has to fall when he finds out he was wrong.

What makes you think that humans evolved out of neanderthals?

[James R]

I'm still waiting to hear from Carico about all the things that creationists are supposed to know.

He claimed to be able to answer all the questions scientists with PhDs can't answer. But when pressed, he apparently has no answers.

My faith in Creationism is fading fast!

[Medicine*Woman]

I'm still waiting to hear from Carico about all the things that creationists are supposed to know.

He claimed to be able to answer all the questions scientists with PhDs can't answer. But when pressed, he apparently has no answers.

My faith in Creationism is fading fast!
*************
M*W: He hasn't answered my one question, either. My faith in Carico is fading fast!

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I'm still waiting to hear from Carico about all the things that creationists are supposed to know.

He claimed to be able to answer all the questions scientists with PhDs can't answer. But when pressed, he apparently has no answers.

My faith in Creationism is fading fast!

Don't play dumb james, you know full well that he cannot answer with evidence, don't be so coy and pretend that you are genuine and actualy think he will come up with some kind of new found evidence to support creationist ramblings.

you aswell medicine woman, he is prob like 14 years old and is still learning things.


peace.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Why would you think he's 14???

[Medicine*Woman]

Don't play dumb james, you know full well that he cannot answer with evidence, don't be so coy and pretend that you are genuine and actualy think he will come up with some kind of new found evidence to support creationist ramblings.

you aswell medicine woman, he is prob like 14 years old and is still learning things.
*************
M*W: If that's the case, he surely has been seriously indoctrinated. I think he's much older.

[Carico]

hat makes you think that humans evolved out of neanderthals?

So now you're claiming that neanderthals were not a transitional species to humans. Is that correct? :bugeye: If so, then I agree with you 100%. ;) But unfortunately, you disagree with every book & documentary on evolution. But again since the theory of evolution is as imaginary as it is subjective, that explains the disagreements between evolutionists. ;)

[AlphaNumeric]

So now you're claiming that neanderthals were not a transitional species to humans. Is that correct? :bugeye: If so, then I agree with you 100%. ;) But unfortunately, you disagree with every book & documentary on evolution. No, he doesn't. Why don't you read those books.Infact, the current issue of National Geographic has a cover story on them.
But again since the theory of evolution is as imaginary as it is subjective, that explains the disagreements between evolutionists. ;) Unlike religion, science uses evidence and updates its views as new evidence comes to light. The current evidence is not extensive enough to be conclusive.

[Bells]

So now you're claiming that neanderthals were not a transitional species to humans. Is that correct? :bugeye:
Yes. Neanderthals were a different hominid species.

If so, then I agree with you 100%. ;)
Ermmm no. I don't think you quite grasp what we are discussing.

But unfortunately, you disagree with every book & documentary on evolution. But again since the theory of evolution is as imaginary as it is subjective, that explains the disagreements between evolutionists. ;)
Errr no. I have never read a book or seen a documentary on evolution that had homo sapiens evolving from neanderthals. Where do you get the idea that it were so?

Have you ever read any books aside from the bible on the subject of evolution? I'd suggest you do. Or better yet, pick up a biology book.

[Carico]

Errr no. I have never read a book or seen a documentary on evolution that had homo sapiens evolving from neanderthals. Where do you get the idea that it were so?

Have you ever read any books aside from the bible on the subject of evolution? I'd suggest you do. Or better yet, pick up a biology book.

Actually I did just last week. It was a "documentary" called "Clash of the Caveman." It was about a neanderthal woman who was abducted. In the show they were surprised that they couldn't find one ounce of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. They were surprised because they claimed that humans evolved out of several transitional species including the neanderthal. So it appears that you're the ignorant one about a theory that you claim to believe.:rolleyes:

And considering that I was a non-Christian for longer than I've been a Christian, I've given evolution more than equal time. I've probably studied it for longer than you've been alive. So you're ignorant about my life as well. :rolleyes:

[Steve100]

Actually I did just last week. It was a "documentary" called "Clash of the Caveman." It was about a neanderthal woman who was abducted. In the show they were surprised that they couldn't find one ounce of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. They were surprised because they claimed that humans evolved out of several transitional species including the neanderthal. So it appears that you're the ignorant one about a theory that you claim to believe.:rolleyes:

And considering that I was a non-Christian for longer than I've been a Christian, I've given evolution more than equal time. I've probably studied it for longer than you've been alive. So you're ignorant about my life as well. :rolleyes:

You must be a retard to have studied something for so long, yet still come out with ridiculous untrue statements about it.

Or maybe you haven't studied it.

Maybe both.

[Ophiolite]

Actually I did just last week. It was a "documentary" called "Clash of the Caveman." It was about a neanderthal woman who was abducted. In the show they were surprised that they couldn't find one ounce of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. They were surprised because they claimed that humans evolved out of several transitional species including the neanderthal. I hate to be the one to break it to you (Actually I am delighted it has fallen to me.:)): documentaries are not a sound source for scientific theories. They are a form of entertainment. Some of them give very accurate portrayals of current scientific thinking, but others devote to much attention to the controversial, or the extreme, or over simplify,to be of particular value.

I know of no scientist for half a century who has claimed Neanderthals were direct human ancestors. A small group of researchers believe there may have been minor interbreeding, but that is quite a different thing.

If you are basing your beliefs on documentaries, I am not surprised you have developed some pretty screwy ideas.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Why would you think he's 14???

I just got the impression that he was a young teenager, many things contributed to this impression but I see I was wrong and he is alot older than I am. :shrug:

*************
M*W: If that's the case, he surely has been seriously indoctrinated. I think he's much older.


Yeah I think your right, But I don't think he was indoctrinated early on.


peace.

[wsionynw]

Actually I did just last week. It was a "documentary" called "Clash of the Caveman."

I've seen creationist "documentaries" that were complete bullshit. So what's your point?

[spidergoat]

No one can tell if Neaderthals are an ancestor to humans, or just shared a common ancestor with them, since it requires DNA to be sure. The story of human evolution from an ape-like creature does not depend at all on every single humanoid fossil being a direct ancestor.

Your statements about animal DNA "getting into" human DNA are stupid. DNA changes over time. This is what allows living things to adapt to changing environments.

[Saquist]

Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

1) That the earth was created from water and by water
2) That God created the earth
3) How long it took God to create the earth
4) Why the sun just happens to be positioned the exact distance away from the earth to sustain life on earth
5) The purpose for the stars and moon
6) How man was created and why
7) Why the flesh and bones of man decay into dust
8) How and why animals & humans each reproduce themselves and not other animals
8) How the earth and all living things will end
9) What happens after humans die
10) That there is a God and who He is

That's just the tip of the iceberg of what creationists know. Scientists know NONE of the above which is why they're constantly exploring and always will continue to do so. ;)

It is of intrest to note Creationist: or Catastrophist are the dominating reason for science's greatest discoveries and law. Laws of Motion,Gravity, Discovering the true nature of the shape of the Earth, and General Relativity.

Uniformitarian theories have yet to be confirmed in many ways. Their work made possible by Catastrophist who concluded God must be a reality. Einstein was that last great leap. He died attempting to arrest the secrets of the Unifying Force from a set of complicated equations.

[spidergoat]

That's what he was doing, but he didn't die of it.

[Bells]

Actually I did just last week. It was a "documentary" called "Clash of the Caveman." It was about a neanderthal woman who was abducted. In the show they were surprised that they couldn't find one ounce of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. They were surprised because they claimed that humans evolved out of several transitional species including the neanderthal. So it appears that you're the ignorant one about a theory that you claim to believe.:rolleyes:

And considering that I was a non-Christian for longer than I've been a Christian, I've given evolution more than equal time. I've probably studied it for longer than you've been alive. So you're ignorant about my life as well. :rolleyes:

Ok. Let me get this straight. You have apparently been studying evolution for more than 36 years and you're still this ignorant of it? The claims you have made in this thread about evolution show a complete and utter lack of understanding on the subject. And you're saying you've been studying it for more than I have been alive.. which is 36 years by the way..?

Excuse me while I laugh too hard to be able to type..

Clash of the Caveman is a mockumentary.. Neanderthals were a different species of the homo genus. In other words, they were a different hominid species that co-existed with homo sapiens during a particular point in time. Do you know what this means? It means that humans and neanderthals shared a common ancestor at some point in the evolution tree. The reason it is deemed or referred to as the evolution tree is because it has many branches.

This is like basic biology. How hard can it be to understand?

[Baron Max]

Do you know what this means? It means that humans and neanderthals shared a common ancestor at some point in the evolution tree.

Hmm, according to the evolutionary theories, doesn't all life share some common ancestory at some point in the evolutionary tree? If that's so, then what exactly are you trying to say in your post?

Baron Max

[JDawg]

Wow. I gotta say, I'm not sure I've ever seen a poster make this big of a mistake. Dude literally tried to say that Homo Sapiens are direct descendants of Neanderthals, and based it soley on the one documentary he's ever seen on the subject.

Wow. Talk about laying your cards on the table. Holy crap.

[Bells]

Hmm, according to the evolutionary theories, doesn't all life share some common ancestory at some point in the evolutionary tree? If that's so, then what exactly are you trying to say in your post?

Baron Max

:bugeye:

Exactly that.

What's your point?

[SkinWalker]

So now you're claiming that neanderthals were not a transitional species to humans. Is that correct? If so, then I agree with you 100%. ;) But unfortunately, you disagree with every book & documentary on evolution. But again since the theory of evolution is as imaginary as it is subjective, that explains the disagreements between evolutionists. ;)

This is where you've completely discredited yourself as having even a passing understanding of human evolution. Indeed, its no wonder now that you seem not to have even a basic 8th grade education in science .... you apparently don't.

In 8th grade textbooks, even in your day (which was probably the early 1970's), the notion that H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals was but one of two main hypotheses. Over the years, researchers have remained divided as to which was expected to be true.

These are known as the Multiregional and the Replacement hypotheses (http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2006/11/paleoanthropology-multiregional-versus-replacement/) and, until recently, the division of researchers was fairly evenly split between the two hypotheses. Recent data suggests, however, that the Replacement hypothesis is the correct one, meaning that humans did not evolve from Neanderthals but, rather, replaced them.

Until this recent data, I was leaning more toward the Multi-Regional camp, but I cannot deny the science.

Both Neanderthals and H. sapiens evolved from a common ancestor, that much is clear (and deniable only to the most ignorant and undereducated in society), but the only debate in paleoanthropology is whether they evolved concurrently or whether one evolved from the other. It looks to be the former more and more.

So, with the ignorant and undereducated statement of "every book & documentary on evolution," there really is little more on any topic of academic discourse -including human religious psychology and sociological behavior- that we can take seriously from an anti-science troll like carico.

I suspect her days on this forum are numbered based on the tolerance we've had for similar anti-science cranks like IAC in the past.

[(Q)]

Here's what creationists know about the earth and the universe:

2) That God created the earth

10) That there is a God and who He is

Not to worry that you're putting the cart before the horse so to speak, those two gems are all you will ever need in your intellectual arsenal to combat the evils of rationale. You need not know anything more, the rest is irrelevant, yes?

[James R]

I think Carico is a bit afraid of me.

[Bells]

I think Carico is a bit afraid of me.

It's your 'Sean the Sheep' avatar James.

[Carico]

Not to worry that you're putting the cart before the horse so to speak, those two gems are all you will ever need in your intellectual arsenal to combat the evils of rationale. You need not know anything more, the rest is irrelevant, yes?

Considering that those 2 gems are one of the few truthful statements on this forum, then yes, that's pretty much all anyone needs to know. ;)

In fact, if you knew them too, not only would you know everything in my OP, you'd know a lot more about life, yourself, man, the history of man, how to handle relationships, finances, how to treat others, what love is and where you're going when you die. ;) But I already knew that most people here can't distinguish truth from fiction so I don't expect you to know any of the above. Nevertheless, I'm called to explain it to you. And That I do. ;)

[Bells]

Considering that those 2 gems are one of the few truthful statements on this forum, then yes, that's pretty much all anyone needs to know. ;)

In fact, if you knew them too, not only would you know everything in my OP, you'd know a lot more about life, yourself, man, the history of man, how to handle relationships, finances, how to treat others, what love is and where you're going when you die. ;) But I already knew that most people here can't distinguish truth from fiction so I don't expect you to know any of the above. Nevertheless, I'm called to explain it to you. And That I do. ;)

Here's the thing Carico. You haven't explained anything. You have made some broad statements and when questioned or queried about said statements, you have failed to respond.

You have thus far shown a complete lack of understanding of human evolution. So much so that it borders on ignorance and would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful. I feel anger at the education you have received simply because your education system has failed you terribly.

While you may view evolution as fiction, evidence states otherwise. That you could refer to evolution as mere fiction while arguing that the Bible is the truth is astounding.

If you are going to make claims as you have done in this thread, if you want to be taken even remotely seriously, then you need to back up those claims. You need to be able to discuss your claims in a manner that does not simply amount to "God did it and I know he did because it says so in the Bible".

[Vkothii]

And that is the wrong set of buttons you're pushing.

What you have to try is to arrange a logical fallacy to trip over, or explore why if there is so little faith to be placed in science, so many people use it so much?
Why does this guy have faith in the Internet - a direct result of computer development, or the WWW - a result of scientific investigation into fundamental particle physics at CERN, where they're looking for the "God" particle now.

Why the dichotomy? Computer scientists are OK, paleontologists and biologists aren't?
Evolution is imaginary, but electrical engineering is for real? How many other scientists are researching imaginary things? How can we be sure any of it is for real, after all, it's all science.

[(Q)]

Considering that those 2 gems are one of the few truthful statements on this forum, then yes, that's pretty much all anyone needs to know.

That's what I suspected. Of course, if that's really all you needed to know, why are you not living in a cave? Why do you take advantage of everything science has to offer while making such statements? Your computer, internet connection and most everything else you've come to know is a product of people who go well beyond your level of knowledge.

So, instead of being a hypocrite, why don't you give up everything science has provided you and go live in a cave with your two gems, as that is all you need to know.

In fact, if you knew them too, not only would you know everything in my OP, you'd know a lot more about life, yourself, man, the history of man, how to handle relationships, finances, how to treat others, what love is and where you're going when you die.

How can that be? You stated that only two things need to be known, those other things you state have nothing to do with that level of knowledge, they are well beyond that level. You are now contradicting yourself.

But I already knew that most people here can't distinguish truth from fiction so I don't expect you to know any of the above. Nevertheless, I'm called to explain it to you. And That I do.

You've said one thing that contradicted another, that isn't explaining, that's causing confusion.

[Enterprise-D]

Interpreting fossils is as subjective as looking at leaves on a tree and imagining what they look like.

If I'm looking at leaves ON a tree, I have no need to imagine what the tree looks like...the tree is obviously there...




(This thread expanded a lot since page 1 :) )

[Carico]

That's what I suspected. Of course, if that's really all you needed to know, why are you not living in a cave? Why do you take advantage of everything science has to offer while making such statements? Your computer, internet connection and most everything else you've come to know is a product of people who go well beyond your level of knowledge.


Because God's wisdom is infinite since he's omniscient and man is not. So there's always something more to learn in the bible. One can only build on the truth. O