Really?
I am not English speaking, so please forgive my writing skills.
Quote:
A universe which did not come from nothing, and had no net increase in something would be much more likely than an all powerful being coming from nothing.
It seems that you would like to believe that something came from something.
Quote:
I start with the premise that spirit does not exist, I know that Kenneth Miller a evolutionary biologist and a Christian says that although he believes in a god he can not test the existence of god or spirit, no one can.
Premise means to assume! You base your belief on an assumption, the same as creationists, which base their belief on the assumption that a Creator exist, which brings your request to the same value the creationist have! Yet if a method to test is provided you reject it based on your belief system!
Quote:
Well you can start by educating us on the two following questions:
Quote:
First, state in clear terms how you believe God actually went about creating the many different species we see on earth.
Second, state what evidence would tend to support or disprove that hypothesis.
This is a theory; based on what I know about evolution and science which is not much: All the first life forms whether from space (panspermia) or developed here on earth through Abiogenesis were all microscopic in size and from this by way of evolution etc the different species we have today evolved.
To state I know exactly how it came to be would be unrealistic, but looking from the creationists point of view which is in a sense spiritualistic I would theorize that a spiritual creator or being are able to take the atoms around us, and form different living beings with it, and in this process place spirit, which is life into those very small microscopic entities they have formed thus creating life. We, looked at today as the managers of this planet have probably evolved from one of those very small organisms into what we are today, but not only physically, spiritually as well, we could possibly have started out as the life inside an Amoeba and today drive this thing we call a human body.
That is my theory, I cannot prove it, but as far as evidence go it is clear that the eco systems we have discovered so far has indicated to us that an intelligent design must have been behind what we know today as life, the very small variances in D.N.A from one specie to another is also indicative of that intelligence.
( Man as a mechanical being! atheists point of view; should we only be a mechanical being and oxygen is withheld from us for three to five minutes we die, the mechanics of our physical body takes a couple of ours to totally shut down, should we be given oxygen after ten or fifteen minutes being just a mechanical being we would all be alive again after being kick started again, fact is very few of us come back to life again after such an incident. ) Many people have gone through what is called near death experiences, and described how they saw the doctors efforts trying to survive them from outside their physical bodies, and suddenly found themselves back inside their bodies experiencing the pain caused by the doctors efforts, are all those reports hallucinations?
In my opinion a God like the one we find in scriptures do not exist, a creator or creators probably had something to do with our existence, but they will most definitely not interfere in the running and evolution of our lives, we and we alone are responsible for what happens to us and our future is determined by what we learn as we go. It is possible that Zecharaiah Sitchin found some truth about our existence from the Sumerian tablets which in a way explain the unnatural jump from homo erectus to homo sapiens.
It is my opinion that science still have a long way to go to prove many of lifes theories, for us to now at this moment in time reject or discard some of the efforts made by science and others just because our belief systems do not agree will be somewhat ignorant.
walmul.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
(My bold).
HOW is that clear?
HOW is that indicative?
Life is an ongoing process. If that process is interrupted it can be very hard to get it started again. Also, it is folly to think of yourself as nothing more than a "single solid piece of human". Our bodies contain a multitude of processes, involving bacteria, chemical reactions and so on. For instance, the bacteria living in your body that once were vital to your continuous survival will to a large degree consume your body after you are dead.
In short, yes they are hallucinations. I have myself had similar hallucinations during a hospital stay I had some seven months ago as I was coming out of a coma.
Now that I can agree with.
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
1. Create hypothesis.
2. Describe to us your hypothesis.
3. Is the hypothesis empirically testable.
4. Oh wait I think you need to go back to the drawing board.
2. Describe to us your hypothesis.
3. Is the hypothesis empirically testable.
4. Oh wait I think you need to go back to the drawing board.
The evidence for creation has been presented repeatedly in this thread. Saying that it hasn't doesn't change the facts, nor does attacking the ones who presented the evidence. One more time, with feeling, the evidence for an intelligent Creator can be found simply by investigating the manifest intelligence and design in what is created (Hebrews 3:4) As to how God created these things, I refer you to Genesis chapters 1 and 2, an account evolutionists deny but are unable to refute. That account shows God created various animals and plants according to their kinds, not through a process of evolution from one kind to another. Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, "not that there is a gradual accumulation of change,but that for long periods of time "little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species." " Quote from Was Life Created?
In other words, animals and plants reproduce according to their 'kinds'. Wait, where have I read that before? Oh, yeah, in Genesis, written 3,500 years ago.
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Again, define kind.
If I may, the Bible does not define kind, and it is pointless to speculate. The Bibole is not a science textbook. However, what it says is scientifically accurate. Clearly, there are limits in which animals may successfully breed offspring together. Human kind cannot breed successfully with monkeys, and animal groups (call them species or whatever else you want to call them) cannot interbreed, dogs with cats, chickens with 'fishies', etc. The Bible is absolutely accurate when it so states.
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
I believe that empirical evidence is the only way to do science.
Well very simplified but yes pretty close.
So you are a theistic evolutionist( god created life and we evolved on our own from there) or intelligent design( god created life and controls evolution).
I don't think malaria or zebra mussels were very good ideas. Small variances is from recent common ancestors.
Yes they were all lies, dreams or real hallucinations.
It wasn't a jump, it was a gradual process involving Homo hiedelbergensis.
Well to reject ours beside mountains of evidence seems very ignorant.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
The "evidence" presented can generally be boiled down to one of two "arguments". Either 1."God did it, the bible says it, that proves it" or 2."I don't understand this so god must have done it".
I really think you guys need to do some more research. Here are some key-words for you to google: scientific evidence, scientific method, scientific hypothesis. I'll wait.
We're not attacking them. At best we're attacking their (and your) understanding of science and doing our best to educate them where required.
The passage says: "For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God." Hence, I refer you to "argument" 1 above.
Argument 1 again.
The bible is not evidence of anything, except perhaps the human ability to believe fairy tales. Bring some science to the table and MAYBE we'll listen.
The quote speaks about punctuated equilibrium and his writings in no way agrees with Genesis. Quote mining is also something we have become used to from Creationists by the way, so I can't really say I am surprised.
Last edited:
Danmac
Well-Known Member
God will reveal himself to the serious seeker.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
As jarofthoughts pointed out, this is the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
Do you really believe that some of us weren't seriously seeking?
I personally started as a believer, creationist and all. I started questioning as I started to learn more about logical fallacies in particular and began to realize that my belief wasn't based on anything solid. Yet, that belief was so ingrained in me that I really wanted it to be true, so I kept asking God to show me signs, give me a reason.
It's asinine when people tell atheists that they haven't "found the truth" because they aren't looking hard enough. That's just petty.
newhope101
Active Member
Autodidact Quote "Before you can begin to look for evidence, you need to state your hypothesis. [how many times have I said this in this thread?] Could you please lay out your hypothesis for how we get all the different kinds of species that we have?"
God created one, a few, several or hundreds of initial breeding pairs or individual organisms. Most likely they were created in a geographic area (Garden of Eden). Then they spread and adapted and diversified. Except for mankind who was created fully formed as a thinking and reasoning individual, 6000 years ago. How about that?
Look I do not make out I have an uncontestable scientific hypothesis of a creation event as such. That would be a true scientific breakthrough. I, not unlike all of you are dependent on the data and interpretation of researchers.
Like ToE I'm sure if scientists were trying to match their data in with ToC it would be easier. However, there would still be controversy perhaps around which ancestor was the first bird and around dates. We still have alot to learn, particularly from genome research. So much has been done but it is still fractional, I think 1-2% of the entire genome has been analyzed.
The recent genetic research on any organism done so far strongly suggests that all species alive today come from a common ancestor. This generally is held to believe a common group of people. However when intensive genomic research is done the results indicate lineage to an individual, such as the sponge; or a male and female, such as with humans. Much more work needs to be done.
I have seen how dates can be manipulated by the information that is entered into the computation. Population and fertility or atmospheric carbon etc depending on what is being dated. I really think that researches could make it fit with creation theory if they wished to.
The question for me that science needs to answer is how many of each kind, other than humans, were made? So did God make one breeding pair of birds or several or hundreds to begin with and what did they look like? How many dinosaurs initially and how did they change? Are the biblical days literal or not? Are they literal for man but not for other life? Did God make so many organisms initially that lived in a small area and then spread and changed fairly dramatically to fit their environment? How dramatically? However birds started as birds and remain birds. Arch, the bird-dino, if it is real, may have been created as a kind. Just because a species is morphologically similar to another or two others to me does not necessarily indicate much at all. That's, kind of, the line I take in this thread.
ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
This type of research is done by smart educated researchers. It seriously leads me to believe researchers are biased in favour of making a name for themselves within the scientific community. To do that you cannot support creation. Most of all, it convinces me that scientists really are quite blind to what they are seeing and claiming. The above article is one of many I have posted over the time here on RF. This research will no doubt be refuted and in years to come the refute of the refute.
Again with the dino bird example. A bird was always a bird of some sort. A dino was always a dino of some sort, arch was whatever, perhaps a dinosaur that had feathering. This does not make it a transitional species whether or not dinos became birds or birds became dinos.
To get the right answers researchers need to ask the right questions..and they are not. So it will remain confusing.
I think it would be fairly easy to use current data as evidence in support of of the variety creation models. All researchers need to do is want to...and ask the right questions.
God created one, a few, several or hundreds of initial breeding pairs or individual organisms. Most likely they were created in a geographic area (Garden of Eden). Then they spread and adapted and diversified. Except for mankind who was created fully formed as a thinking and reasoning individual, 6000 years ago. How about that?
Look I do not make out I have an uncontestable scientific hypothesis of a creation event as such. That would be a true scientific breakthrough. I, not unlike all of you are dependent on the data and interpretation of researchers.
Like ToE I'm sure if scientists were trying to match their data in with ToC it would be easier. However, there would still be controversy perhaps around which ancestor was the first bird and around dates. We still have alot to learn, particularly from genome research. So much has been done but it is still fractional, I think 1-2% of the entire genome has been analyzed.
The recent genetic research on any organism done so far strongly suggests that all species alive today come from a common ancestor. This generally is held to believe a common group of people. However when intensive genomic research is done the results indicate lineage to an individual, such as the sponge; or a male and female, such as with humans. Much more work needs to be done.
I have seen how dates can be manipulated by the information that is entered into the computation. Population and fertility or atmospheric carbon etc depending on what is being dated. I really think that researches could make it fit with creation theory if they wished to.
The question for me that science needs to answer is how many of each kind, other than humans, were made? So did God make one breeding pair of birds or several or hundreds to begin with and what did they look like? How many dinosaurs initially and how did they change? Are the biblical days literal or not? Are they literal for man but not for other life? Did God make so many organisms initially that lived in a small area and then spread and changed fairly dramatically to fit their environment? How dramatically? However birds started as birds and remain birds. Arch, the bird-dino, if it is real, may have been created as a kind. Just because a species is morphologically similar to another or two others to me does not necessarily indicate much at all. That's, kind of, the line I take in this thread.
ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
This type of research is done by smart educated researchers. It seriously leads me to believe researchers are biased in favour of making a name for themselves within the scientific community. To do that you cannot support creation. Most of all, it convinces me that scientists really are quite blind to what they are seeing and claiming. The above article is one of many I have posted over the time here on RF. This research will no doubt be refuted and in years to come the refute of the refute.
Again with the dino bird example. A bird was always a bird of some sort. A dino was always a dino of some sort, arch was whatever, perhaps a dinosaur that had feathering. This does not make it a transitional species whether or not dinos became birds or birds became dinos.
To get the right answers researchers need to ask the right questions..and they are not. So it will remain confusing.
I think it would be fairly easy to use current data as evidence in support of of the variety creation models. All researchers need to do is want to...and ask the right questions.
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
Now this a common creationist argument, please observe how they claim the evidence could fit it if a different interpretation was used, the second is citing claims of uncertainly in the field of research, this is normal in any field of science and is not a sign the theory is wrong.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Straight from the atheist handbook heh?
I think the problem is, many believe God to be religious.
Conversion is a heart issue, not a head issue. Heaven and hell are 18 inches apart.
You haven't found Him, but He is there. That is self explanatory.
Noaidi
slow walker
Spread, adapted and diversified? Isn't there a name for that process? It eludes me at the moment. Damn, I wish I could remember that name. Begins with an 'e'. Evocation? No, that's not it. Equivocation? Nope. Not that either. Bear with me - it'll come to me.
Anyone help me out here...?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
That would be utterly inconsistent with the data we have on both human evolutionary development and human history. We know for a fact that there existed human cultures long before 4000 BC and we know for a fact that there existed human ancestors several million years ago.
I mean...Egypt anyone?
Still, you don't have a workable hypothesis. Please see my other post on the subject in this tread for reference. Most importantly you lack a "then- if" definition which after all determines whether a hypothesis is testable or not.
(Hint: If it is not testable, even in theory, then it is not a scientific hypothesis).
No, it would not be easier. There is a veritable mountain of evidence that contradicts the YEC concept (I'm not even going to call it a theory in fear of confusion).
Also, which genome are we talking about here? If you indicate all genomes of every species ever, then that is never going to happen. But several species have been mapped and the genetic markers fit perfectly with what we would expect if Evolution is correct.
This is correct.
But importantly, it is not postulated that these were the only people alive at the time. Merely that they are the common ancestors of the people living today.
Of course. If we already knew everything there would be no point in doing science. This is a given.
Again, do you have any sources or evidence that this type of manipulation has taken place? Also, notice that carbon dating is just one of many different types of isotope dating that is used, and we have dating methods that does not rely on isotopes at all. And they all fit together. Strange that...
Again, "kinds" is a useless term in biology.
First we need some evidence that this was done by "god".
They became birds. At least that is where we stand at the moment. Some recent research has indicated however that the split might have taken place earlier than we have thought. Isnt science wonderful! Always looking for mistakes to correct!
Well, I guess you'll have to start in one end and work your way through it. That's what science is...a s**tload of work. I wish more people realized this. Then maybe they wouldn't be so bold about their own pet delusions.
Nope.
And the article you quoted (link: Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around? ) in no way supports Creationism either. It merely suggests, as I noted above, that the split between dinosaurs and birds came earlier than we have thought. And of course things get refuted, changed and added to in science. This is not religion remember? This is the way science progresses and it is one of its greatest strengths. Nothing is final. Everything is conditional. The only thing you can do is follow the evidence. And if new evidence surfaces, which is exactly the case here, then you have to modify your theory to fit the new data. Simple, no?
Nope.
Dinosaurs were not always dinosaurs. Like us they were once fish.
Every fossil is, in fact, a transitional fossil.
I dont find it confusing and I get the feeling you find it confusing is because you are trying to insert something into the equation that we have no evidence exists. And until we do that something has no place in science.
Noaidi
slow walker
How about that? I think you'll have to provide evidence for your assertion that humans are only 6000 years old. Keep in mind that there is considerable evidence to the contrary that you will have to refute.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Huh?
The heart is an organ that pumps blood.
Use your brain to do your thinking.
Oooh... That sure was convincing. I'm gonna convert right now!!!
Seriously...Do you expect this kindergarten type of argumentation is going to win anyone over?
Noaidi
slow walker
ToC?? Getting ahead of yourself, here. In what way is the "Theory of Creation" a valid scientific theory? (I'm assuming you mean ToC to stand for Theory of Creation, and not Theory of Crap...)
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Can't for the life of me remember, but I think some dude named Darwin was involved at some point...
