Creationists, please provide evidence

[tumbleweed41]

I see no takers to refute my research.

Great..that means .

CREATIONISTS HAVE FOUND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CREATION.

HOORAY!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

PW and all of you. Kinds were created with the DNA/genes they were created with. Gene families work differently to allow for some adaptation. Fruit fly may invert genes in response to climatic conditions, some do not have the diversity to adapt further. They may mutate more wings, develop quicker, and may be given different species names. They remain the same kind, always were the same kind and will always be the same kind.

Just listen to you....You're citing everything evolution says and yet you hold so dear to your notion of "kind".....Kind of a fly?....well, OK but a different species of fly none the less.

There are 135,000 single nucleotide differences and 5 million insertion/deletion events and other chromosomal rearrangements humans have undergone since divergence from the common ancestor. About 27% of the chimp genome does not align with the human genome. The overall genome comparison of 30% difference. Many papers cite 4-6% difference, depending on method. See Wiki Chimpanzee Genome Project.

So what. This is not a slap in the face of Evolution as you want to believe. The fact that the chimp genome differs from ours a little is not a surprise to biologist considering we're split into separate evolutionary paths. We didn't evolve from them nor did they evolve from us. We share a common ancestor along the evolutionary time line. I'm sure that if we compare the genome of chimps to other primates we won't see a 100% match up and yet we know that all primates are related. Again, I must remind you of HIV research and the fact that biologist understand the relationship via genetics that chimps and other primates as well as humans are related.

We’ve had 5-8 my to do it. Hence accelerated evolution is meant to explain a lot of it. Yet the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee cited that 9 chromosomes that underwent major changes showed no evidence of accelerated adaptive evolution of chromosomes. The explanations involved terms like ‘may reflect’ and appear vague at best. See Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome - The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium*

So basically you have no understanding what is meant by accelerated evolution. No one says AE in a species is an extremely quick evolution. What the research is saying that we can see certain areas of the chimp/human genome is evolving at a different rate.

What I am saying is this research into fruitflys at least gives results you can see. There is still modelling done but the results are more reliable. The research shows so far that there was no sign of even the beginning of major genetic changes.

What we're saying is that even the smallest change fits the ToE. It's about change in a species over time. It can be a short AND/OR long time.

The fruit fly 600 generations is equivalent to 12,000 years your researchers say. The hoped for comparative change did not occur in a test species. The fruitflies showed undetectable genomic change according to the research. That is science. Your science illustrates evolution, as you see it, is not occurring in this research. In kind variation occurs at no more than an expressive level. This is not the end of the story but is good supportive evidence in the here and now that evolution on a macro level does not occur and that kinds were created individually. Let’s see what happens if they go for another 35 years. There will still be no sign of change at any more than an expressive level.

Evos may interpret data as they wish. I likewise, may do the same.

Unfortunately for you biologist don't share your view.....

 

[newhope101]

Just listen to you....You're citing everything evolution says and yet you hold so dear to your notion of "kind".....Kind of a fly?....well, OK but a different species of fly none the less.

If you want a laugh look up drosphilidae up in Wiki and see just how much you don't know about anythings evolution ..oh except of course everything evolved from something else...somehow! 2 subfamilies without a single feature to distinguish them.

So what. This is not a slap in the face of Evolution as you want to believe. The fact that the chimp genome differs from ours a little is not a surprise to biologist considering we're split into separate evolutionary paths. We didn't evolve from them nor did they evolve from us. We share a common ancestor along the evolutionary time line. I'm sure that if we compare the genome of chimps to other primates we won't see a 100% match up and yet we know that all primates are related. Again, I must remind you of HIV research and the fact that biologist understand the relationship via genetics that chimps and other primates as well as humans are related.
You need common ancestors, but they are not really there apart from in theory and desperation. Oh yeah..that's why your genomics say a knuckle walking chimp is genetically closer to a human than it is to a knucklewalking orangutan. Think of human, chimp & orang, Who is the odd one out by any use of common sense? Oh ..I forgot common sense has long left the evolutionary sciences. If this is the sort of nonsense your science arrives at, it is obviously lacking somewhere.


So basically you have no understanding what is meant by accelerated evolution. No one says AE in a species is an extremely quick evolution. What the research is saying that we can see certain areas of the chimp/human genome is evolving at a different rate.

I don't think you know anything about any sort of evolution. That's Ok though that's no worse that your researchers grabbing at any straw for as long as it supports them. eg Flavour of the month and the garbage bin of delusionary solid evidence past.

What we're saying is that even the smallest change fits the ToE. It's about change in a species over time. It can be a short AND/OR long time.

No sorry you lot are the ones that reckon adaptation and speciation enable one kind to poof into another kind. The problem is you can't show a taste of it even in a controlled laboratory setting, let alone in the wild





Unfortunately for you biologist don't share your view.....

Fortunately, I do not pretend to be a biologist. What's your excuse for playing dumb bunny?



The Institute For Creation explains it all in general better than I:

100 Years of Fruit Fly Tests Show No Evolution

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

July 22, 2010, marked the 100th anniversary of genetic investigations using fruit flies. The first such study appeared in Science in 1910 and described the unexpected appearance of a male fruit fly with white eyes after generations of flies with pigmented eyes.1 This began a century of focused studies on fruit fly mutations, but what has really been learned by all this tinkering?

For most of the past century--and especially since the discovery of DNA as a physical molecule carrying heritable information--the prevailing concept of neo-Darwinian evolution has held mutations to be the central generator of new and useful information. Thus, mutations have been given ample opportunity to prove themselves, if they are naturally selected, as having "the power to drive the evolution of all living things in the direction of positive improvement."2

Fruit flies, with their short generation times and only four pairs of chromosomes, presented prime testing ground for evolution. In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now.2 But they haven't.

So, having achieved no evolutionary progression in fruit flies by these random means, researchers made them the focus of countless purposeful gene manipulation studies. The most popular, from an evolutionary perspective, were experiments with what are called HOX genes.

HOX, an abbreviation of "homeobox," are genes used by the organism during embryonic development. Many reasoned that it would be simpler for evolution to operate by mutating these genes, since a small alteration could produce a large effect in the fly's body. However, this was before recent studies showed that embyronic development is more heavily influenced by regulatory DNA, not genes. And mutating (through substituting, deleting, or duplicating) developmental genes like HOX has only ever yielded a dead fly, a normal fly (if the mutation happened to have no noticeable effect), or a tiny monster. None of these results match the "positive improvement" expected of Darwinian evolution.

Extra body segments, an extra set of wings, or legs in the place of antennae characterized the weird forms that were generated. Three generations of specifically designed DNA alterations were required to produce fruit flies with four wings--but they couldn't fly. The extra wings had no muscles and were dead weight. One recent exploration of neo-Darwinism remarked:

The mutants that produce four-winged fruit flies survive today only in a carefully controlled environment and only when skilled researchers meticulously guide their subjects through one non-functional stage after another. This carefully controlled experiment does not tell us much about what undirected mutations can produce in the wild.3
​

In his book Evolution, Colin Patterson summarized the lost hope of finding evolution from HOX investigations:

The spectacular effects of homeobox gene mutations were first seen in Drosophila, early in the history of genetics. Carriers of some of these mutations certainly qualify as monsters--though without much hope.4
​

Whereas fruit fly studies have provided critical information about how genes, nerves, longevity, and other biological machines and processes operate, no progress whatsoever has been made in the quest to accelerate these insects' "evolution" by ramping up their mutations. The survivors of 100 years of lab torture are still just fruit flies.



References

1. Morgan, T. H. 1910. Sex Limited Inheritance in Drosophila. Science. 32 (812): 120-122.
2. Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, 31.
3. Meyer, S. C. et al. 2007. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism. London: Hill House Publishers, 105.
4. Patterson, C. 1999. Evolution, 2nd ed. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 114.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

 

[painted wolf]

If you want a laugh look up drosphilidae up in Wiki and see just how much you don't know about anythings evolution ..oh except of course everything evolved from something else...somehow! 2 subfamilies without a single feature to distinguish them.

Well, this is a lie... there may not be any morphological features but there are plenty of molecular and genetic features.
try checking out:"A phylogenetic, revised classification of Genera in the Drosophilidae (Diptera)" Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.
Or: "A supertree analysis and literature review of the genus Drosophila and closely related genera (Diptera, Drosophilidae)". Insect Systematics & Evolution

You need common ancestors, but they are not really there apart from in theory and desperation. Oh yeah..that's why your genomics say a knuckle walking chimp is genetically closer to a human than it is to a knucklewalking orangutan. Think of human, chimp & orang, Who is the odd one out by any use of common sense? Oh ..I forgot common sense has long left the evolutionary sciences. If this is the sort of nonsense your science arrives at, it is obviously lacking somewhere.

Orangs aren't knuckle walkers.... and our pathetic genomics solve crimes and unite families every day. Talk about desperation and nonsense.


Te he... the ICR... so bad even Texas wouldn't let them teach science.
Mr. Thomas claims an MS but never says in what or where he got it... even other creationist sources warn you away from his work
Creation Science Profile, Brian Thomas

but let's see what we have...

The Institute For Creation explains it all in general better than I:

100 Years of Fruit Fly Tests Show No Evolution

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

July 22, 2010, marked the 100th anniversary of genetic investigations using fruit flies. The first such study appeared in Science in 1910 and described the unexpected appearance of a male fruit fly with white eyes after generations of flies with pigmented eyes.1 This began a century of focused studies on fruit fly mutations, but what has really been learned by all this tinkering?

How genes control everything from our eye color to our ability to digest certain foods to our susceptibility to certain diseases. Just for a start.

For most of the past century--and especially since the discovery of DNA as a physical molecule carrying heritable information--the prevailing concept of neo-Darwinian evolution has held mutations to be the central generator of new and useful information. Thus, mutations have been given ample opportunity to prove themselves, if they are naturally selected, as having "the power to drive the evolution of all living things in the direction of positive improvement."2

Fruit flies, with their short generation times and only four pairs of chromosomes, presented prime testing ground for evolution. In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now.2 But they haven't.

No... it was done to identify particular genes and their functions... it's a common process called "knockout". Evolutionary studies don't use induced mutations.

So, having achieved no evolutionary progression in fruit flies by these random means, researchers made them the focus of countless purposeful gene manipulation studies. The most popular, from an evolutionary perspective, were experiments with what are called HOX genes.

HOX, an abbreviation of "homeobox," are genes used by the organism during embryonic development. Many reasoned that it would be simpler for evolution to operate by mutating these genes, since a small alteration could produce a large effect in the fly's body. However, this was before recent studies showed that embyronic development is more heavily influenced by regulatory DNA, not genes. And mutating (through substituting, deleting, or duplicating) developmental genes like HOX has only ever yielded a dead fly, a normal fly (if the mutation happened to have no noticeable effect), or a tiny monster. None of these results match the "positive improvement" expected of Darwinian evolution.

Extra body segments, an extra set of wings, or legs in the place of antennae characterized the weird forms that were generated. Three generations of specifically designed DNA alterations were required to produce fruit flies with four wings--but they couldn't fly. The extra wings had no muscles and were dead weight. One recent exploration of neo-Darwinism remarked:

The mutants that produce four-winged fruit flies survive today only in a carefully controlled environment and only when skilled researchers meticulously guide their subjects through one non-functional stage after another. This carefully controlled experiment does not tell us much about what undirected mutations can produce in the wild.3
​

Here is a good explanation of why the above (taken from a creationist "text book") is bunk.
The Four-Winged Fly | NCSE
an excerpt:
"The four-winged fruit fly is a classic example of how creationists misinterpret the genetic analysis of development. Developmental geneticists try to understand the role of a gene by modifying a gene and analyzing the consequences, so it is of little consequence that four winged flies would not survive in the wild. "

In his book Evolution, Colin Patterson summarized the lost hope of finding evolution from HOX investigations:

The spectacular effects of homeobox gene mutations were first seen in Drosophila, early in the history of genetics. Carriers of some of these mutations certainly qualify as monsters--though without much hope.4
​

Such sad quote mining.... I suggest reading the rest of what he has to say right after that in section 14.1 "science vs. pseudo-science"

Whereas fruit fly studies have provided critical information about how genes, nerves, longevity, and other biological machines and processes operate, no progress whatsoever has been made in the quest to accelerate these insects' "evolution" by ramping up their mutations. The survivors of 100 years of lab torture are still just fruit flies.

And back to the old canard... "No change in kinds!" As if any of the experiments done were ever to try to turn the fruit flies into anything but fruit flies....
I don't know why creationists keep using this ridiculous point.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

oh except of course everything evolved from something else...somehow! 2 subfamilies without a single feature to distinguish them.

I see, so you really don't understand evolution...you just pretend you do by skimming over wiki articles.

You need common ancestors, but they are not really there apart from in theory and desperation. Oh yeah..that's why your genomics say a knuckle walking chimp is genetically closer to a human than it is to a knucklewalking orangutan. Think of human, chimp & orang, Who is the odd one out by any use of common sense? Oh ..I forgot common sense has long left the evolutionary sciences. If this is the sort of nonsense your science arrives at, it is obviously lacking somewhere.

So are you done ranting? Look, the fact of the matter is we humans are genetically similar to other primates. Some more than others. So much so that we are the only members of the line of primates capable of contracting HIV. They can give it to us because of out genetic similarity and vice versa. This is fact and shows we're related genetically.

I don't think you know anything about any sort of evolution. That's Ok though that's no worse that your researchers grabbing at any straw for as long as it supports them. eg Flavour of the month and the garbage bin of delusionary solid evidence past.

This is rich coming from you. No, it's you who has no clue about evolution. The evidence suggest accelerated evolution. If you were familiar with the research instead of quote mining you wouldn't look so uneducated in your responses.

No sorry you lot are the ones that reckon adaptation and speciation enable one kind to poof into another kind. The problem is you can't show a taste of it even in a controlled laboratory setting, let alone in the wild

You are a LIAR, no biologist says or believes this. Biologist don't study "kinds"....

 

[outhouse]

You are a LIAR, no biologist says or believes this. Biologist don't study "kinds"....

More HoMP

 

[newhope101]

[/color] Well, this is a lie... there may not be any morphological features but there are plenty of molecular and genetic features.
try checking out:"A phylogenetic, revised classification of Genera in the Drosophilidae (Diptera)" Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.
Or: "A supertree analysis and literature review of the genus Drosophila and closely related genera (Diptera, Drosophilidae)". Insect Systematics & Evolution
Orangs aren't knuckle walkers.... and our pathetic genomics solve crimes and unite families every day. Talk about desperation and nonsense.

Here is an extract from the second

The genus

​

​

Drosophila is paraphyletic and comprises four​

major clades interspersed with at least five other genera, warranting a revision of the genus.

Despite this progress, many relationships remain unresolved. Much phylogenetic work on this important family remains to be done.​

​

​

​

​

So basically your interpretation of the research remain incorrect as well as your interpretation of the info you gave links to... and more importantly, I got it right. Your reserchers have little to no idea of this taxon just like the others. ​

Re knuckle walking ancestry, are you too young to remember the diagrams of the morph from knucklewalking hands to human? How quickly you forget. Hey remember the common ancestror was a knuckle walker, and that's why we aint got knuckle walker ancestry anymore. ..or do you think the text books just made that up for a good story line? I see you appear to be unfamiliar with that information also, or are you trying to pull a slippery one on us all. I think you are.​

Your discourse re forensics is also an attempt to mislead. In actual fact in my line of work chimeras have been falsely accused of not being the parent of their children, only to be validated with more testing. Your genomics cannot date anything. Much is based on fossil evidence added as values to your modelling. The science of the here and now is not the same as making assumption on what happend 10 million years ago, lovey. I am always humoured by this style of refute. An apple always falls to the ground but evolution is a theory in evolution with only the presumption of ancestry remaining constant.​

...and still if your comparisons put a chimp and human closer to a chimp, orang or even gorilla, it is obvious that your genomics are missing something very important. It is incredible that 2 non human primates would be less genetically similar to each other than to humans. It evades common sense and denotes fallicies and misrepresentation and biased modelling in an attempt to show ancestry.​

Te he... the ICR... so bad even Texas wouldn't let them teach science.
Mr. Thomas claims an MS but never says in what or where he got it... even other creationist sources warn you away from his work
Creation Science Profile, Brian Thomas
So what?
but let's see what we have...
How genes control everything from our eye color to our ability to digest certain foods to our susceptibility to certain diseases. Just for a start.
Yep, you have some basics. However you have no idea how gene families work, RNA regulation is much more important than genes and this work has just begun. Proferring a few advances in no way addresses the bafoonary related to discussions of ancestry of one kind to another and what happend millions of years ago. Not the same science wolf. There is real science going on in the world. It is just that evolutionists have not found it yet.
No... it was done to identify particular genes and their functions... it's a common process called "knockout". Evolutionary studies don't use induced mutations.
Yes and your the same DNA knows if it is going to make a brain or a fingernail. Same DNA, different expression. I'll bet if someone gave you my DNA from my mouth and my heart you would likely say I am two different species for all I know. Particularly if I gave you no indication where the DNA came from.
Here is a good explanation of why the above (taken from a creationist "text book") is bunk.
The Four-Winged Fly | NCSE
an excerpt:
"The four-winged fruit fly is a classic example of how creationists misinterpret the genetic analysis of development. Developmental geneticists try to understand the role of a gene by modifying a gene and analyzing the consequences, so it is of little consequence that four winged flies would not survive in the wild. "
And still the four winged fruit fly was a fruitfly and the same kind...and you have never ever turned anything into anything else, nor would one allele fix in a population. It is unimportant as to the reason of time and why you haven't. The point being you haven't. Your assumption is that one kind will eventually become another kind, however you only have assumptions to back this up regardless of what theoretical evidence you supply.
Such sad quote mining.... I suggest reading the rest of what he has to say right after that in section 14.1 "science vs. pseudo-science"
Evolution is a theory in evolution. The only thing that remains constant is the assumption it is based on....ancestry. To whom, how, when, where, why are still all up for grabs PW, regardles of any debated assumption you provide. Maybe, perhaps and likely, are not scientific terms of validation and never will be.
And back to the old canard... "No change in kinds!" As if any of the experiments done were ever to try to turn the fruit flies into anything but fruit flies....
I don't know why creationists keep using this ridiculous point.
Your famous fruitflys were purported to be examples of speciation. That's Ok, adaptation is not against creationism.. It is when you lot try to allude to this small adaptation as proof of an eventual change from a chimp type being to a human being. This is absolute rubbish. You cannot even see one allele fix in a population as a result of adaptation yet you purport this is one of the major driving forces in evolutionary change.,,or are you saying Darwin was wrong?​

wa:do

So I'll ask you specifically...in relation to human evolution what ancestry is the fossil record good evidence of?

Would it matter if your scientist found out we evolved from Lizards? Would the fossil record still be excellent evidence of ancestry to Lizard, chimp or orangutang, or anything else your researchers come up with in the future? If this is the case, then I suggest that the fossil evidence is not good evidence at all.​

Now, do not evade the question with asides PW. The thread speaks to fossil evidence, not my definition of kind, or a complete hypothesis of creation, or how stupid creationists are.​

Please answer the question as Deist Primate so far has not.​

​

 

[painted wolf]

Here is an extract from the second

The genus
Drosophila is paraphyletic and comprises four

major clades interspersed with at least five other genera, warranting a revision of the genus.
Despite this progress, many relationships remain unresolved. Much phylogenetic work on this important family remains to be done.​

So basically your interpretation of the research remain incorrect as well as your interpretation of the info you gave links to... and more importantly, I got it right. Your reserchers have little to no idea of this taxon just like the others.

No, you just love to jump the shark. Yes, there are areas that are still unresolved... but that doesn't change the fact that the two groups are solid. Now keep your "one little part can be read to disagree... thus it's all invalid" argument.

Re knuckle walking ancestry, are you too young to remember the diagrams of the morph from knucklewalking hands to human. Hey remember the common ancestror was a knuckle walker, anmd that's why we aint fgot knuckle walker ancesrtry anymore. ..or do you think the text books just made that up for a good stroy line? I see you appear to be unfamiliar with that information also, or are you trying to pull a slippery one on us all.

I think you have issues with the scientific method and history. I'm sorry you don't like that knowledge advances, but that isn't my problem.

Your discourse re forensics is also an attempt to mislead. In actual fact in my line of work chimeras have been falsely accused of not being the parent of their children, only to be validated with more testing.

Chimeras? You work with mythical Greek monsters?

Your genomics cannot date anything. Much is based on fossil evidence added as values to your modelling. The science of the here and now is not the same as making assumption on what happend 10 million years ago, lovey. I am always humoured by this style of refute. An apple always falls to the ground but evolution is a theory in evolution with only the presumption of ancestry remaining constant.

Gene frequencies always change with passing generations.

But let's keep your "There is disagreement so the whole thing is invalid" argument in mind shall we?

...and still if your comparisons put a chimp and human closer to a chimp, orang or even gorilla, it is obvious that your genomics are missing something very important. It is incredible that 2 non human primates would be less genetically similar to each other than to humans. It evades common sense and denotes fallicies and misrepresentation and biased modelling in an attempt to show ancestry.

Apparently "common sense" isn't all that common then is it?
You judge too much based on what you want to see.

So what?

So you can't have it both ways.... your own creationists can't agree on which of you are lying and misleading the flock.
You say that the fact that scientists disagree is proof that science can't be the answer.... but your own people can't even agree who can be trusted not to peddle lies.

If according to your own tactics...my side is flawed, then yours is irreparably so.

At least "my side" is looking for answers rather than wasting time with ad hominem attacks and misinformation.

For people who claim ultimate truth... there isn't much agreement on basic ideas.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

So I'll ask you specifically...in relation to human evolution what ancestry is the fossil record good evidence of?​

Ape ancestry.

Would it matter if your scientist found out we evolved from Lizards? Would the fossil record still be excellent evidence of ancestry to Lizard, chimp or orangutang, or anything else your researchers come up with in the future? If this is the case, then I suggest that the fossil evidence is not good evidence at all.

You would need some spectacular evidence for that. Our fossil record is clearly ape.
​

Now, do not evade the question with asides PW. The thread speaks to fossil evidence, not my definition of kind, or a complete hypothesis of creation, or how stupid creationists are.

Please answer the question as Deist Primate so far has not.​

Perhaps you'll actually answer my question... I've asked a few times now.

How do you account for him? Human? Beast? Neither? And why?

wa:do

ps... the DNA in your body doesn't change... you don't have special "heart DNA" in your heart.

 

[wilsoncole]

You quote this implying that design is obvious. The nature of this thread is for proponents of creationism / ID to provide the evidence for that assertion. There is no point claiming that it is obvious, then not backing that statement up.

This much is clear:
What is obvious does not need to be backed up by anything.
That's why it's obvious.

If you see a dent in your car, it is obvious that it has been hit.
What do you need to back it up?
It's obvious!
Not very smart.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[outhouse]

Not very smart.

never seen a smart creationist yet.

its funny, the evolutionist are the ones making the medice to keep your kind alive, doing the research over your head by light years! using ToE on a daily basis

your mind is closed and only due to your lack of education you cannot see the facts in front of you

 

[outhouse]

almost 2000 post and not one shred of real evidence for creation

they only have a 3000 year old ficticious book written by unknown authors only after these fables were told for hundreds of years orally without one eye witness.

Nice!!!

 

[kylixguru]

almost 2000 post and not one shred of real evidence for creation

Not surprising to me.

they only have a 3000 year old ficticious book written by unknown authors only after these fables were told for hundreds of years orally without one eye witness.

Nice!!!

Amazing isn't it? It is the most amazingly accurate book of prophecy that I have ever seen.
You would be able to appreciate it as such if you knew what its creation account was really talking about.

 

[outhouse]

It is the most amazingly accurate book of prophecy that I have ever seen.

how so??? by imagination alone??

You would be able to appreciate it as such if you knew what its creation account was really talking about

I know how it was created and where the original storys originated and just about know how much fiction was added to the hebrew version so they could call it there own.

there are over 33,000 different christian versions of interpretation and now you have the nerve to tell me you think I should understand your personal view???

Ya PASS

 

[wilsoncole]

Nice rant Newhope.

So where is the evidence that you have that supports Biblical Creationism?
(You know, like the OP asks for.)

Are you, by any chance, doubting that life had to be created?



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[McBell]

Are you, by any chance, doubting that life had to be created?

non sequitur.
Perhaps you would like to present this evidence you speak about.
I mean, if it is as obvious as you claim, you should have no problems presenting, right?

Or are you merely here to practice your dodging skill?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Actually what is obvious is Emile Durkheims views on religion:

Sociology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion, for Durkheim, is not "imaginary," although he does deprive it of what many believers find essential. Religion is very real; it is an expression of society itself, and indeed, there is no society that does not have religion. We perceive as individuals a force greater than ourselves, which is our social life, and give that perception a supernatural face. We then express ourselves religiously in groups, which for Durkheim makes the symbolic power greater. Religion is an expression of our collective consciousness, which is the fusion of all of our individual consciousnesses, which then creates a reality of its own.

See Wilson i can play this game to.

-Q

 

[kylixguru]

how so??? by imagination alone??

Nope. Good try though.

I know how it was created and where the original storys originated and just about know how much fiction was added to the hebrew version so they could call it there own.

You mean you have seen myriad fragmentary bits and pieces that you assume were the original source of what eventually ended up being considered holy writ?

there are over 33,000 different christian versions of interpretation and now you have the nerve to tell me you think I should understand your personal view???

I don't recall telling you anything you _should_ do.

I said _IF_ you know how to read it as I do, then you could appreciate my point of view.

Ya PASS

Of course you will pass. Your motivation in this area of inquiry isn't to try and make a better person of yourself to please your Father. Your motivation is to maintain your sense of comfort with yourself that apparently needs a cushion between you and the Bible to do so.

If you want me to tell you what I think you _should_ do, given what I've seen of you so far, you should stop hating yourself and/or stop thinking God hates you.

This could result in you being totally comfortable being 100% indifferent towards religion or a person who regains spiritual eyesight and starts to see the beauty and growth being made available to you by way of it.

I could care less what improbable miracles were orchistrated over the past millennia that enabled me to have 33,000 different versions of the Bible to read. Butchered up and cobbled up as it is, you can still see pretty well through dirty, cracked and pocketed window glass to see what is on the other side.

 

[kylixguru]

Actually what is obvious is Emile Durkheims views on religion:

Religion, for Durkheim, is not "imaginary," although he does deprive it of what many believers find essential. Religion is very real; it is an expression of society itself, and indeed, there is no society that does not have religion. We perceive as individuals a force greater than ourselves, which is our social life, and give that perception a supernatural face. We then express ourselves religiously in groups, which for Durkheim makes the symbolic power greater. Religion is an expression of our collective consciousness, which is the fusion of all of our individual consciousnesses, which then creates a reality of its own.
​

Thank you for sharing this quote. This is by far among the best secular descriptions of 'religion' that I have yet seen.

The Bible contains names to the faces of what I call societal bodies. These groupings do take on distinct characteristics. Was Adam and Eve a person? Yes, and no. Adam lived for almost 1,000 years as a distinct social body, not as an individual super-mortal.

Once you train your eye to see things as Emile Durkheims could, then perhaps you might be able to start making clear and literal sense out of what seems to the untrained eye to be arcane myths and legends with "impossible" or "imaginary" narratives.

 

[painted wolf]

Thank you for sharing this quote. This is by far among the best secular descriptions of 'religion' that I have yet seen.

The Bible contains names to the faces of what I call societal bodies. These groupings do take on distinct characteristics. Was Adam and Eve a person? Yes, and no. Adam lived for almost 1,000 years as a distinct social body, not as an individual super-mortal.

Once you train your eye to see things as Emile Durkheims could, then perhaps you might be able to start making clear and literal sense out of what seems to the untrained eye to be arcane myths and legends with "impossible" or "imaginary" narratives.

I tend to share your view on this actually. Though I tend to see them as more archetypes. From what I have learned about anthropology most people believe that they are the "first" or only "true" people. (literal translations of First Nations names for themselves generally break down this way as an example)
Thus Adam and Eve may be the first "humans" in that they are the first of the cultural lineage.

For another example, the story of Cain and Able seems to me to be about the conflict inherent between farmers and herdsmen. The first cultural division. Thus to me it's no surprise that the elder brother was the herdsman/hunter.

wa:do