Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And you do?
Oh, please Great One, explain to me the ways of the universe.

But when you do please provide proper evidence or you'll just be another lunatic fanatic in my eyes ^-^

A decision is to make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not. The question what it is that makes any decision turn out the way it does, can only be answered by choosing the answer.

 

[Deathbydefault]

A decision is to make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not. The question what it is that makes any decision turn out the way it does, can only be answered by choosing the answer.

So that goes in line with direct multiverse, where a decision you make one way is made a different way in an alternate universe.
Don't mind my example, it helps me to understand things such as these.

I can easily kill your argument with multiverse, but that's off topic so I need to do it in an evolutionary theorist's sense.
The way I will be doing that is by using the example of chance.

There is a high probability that everything that has happened up to this point has had no influence and has only been done by chance.
The evolution type way of saying this would be, "we developed this way for reasons that came from the environment".
An example would be that we could have the same brain structure as we do now but in the body of some form of ape, then we'd be ape culture.

How I'm going to use this against you is that we are at this point by chance.
What influenced our decisions to the creation of today's decisions?
How you were raised might have affected you beliefs, just as how I was raised has affected mine.
But let's go back latter in history.
What if science never became a thing?
Or nobody ever came up with concept of there being a God?

I'm presenting "what if" scenarios and assuming you know the reason why.
You are presenting to me a "what if" scenario, but worded differently.

"A decision is to make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not."
Making possibilities goes in line with chance.
You make the possibility of something happening with every decision made.

Car A is more worn down but gets better Gas than Car B
You decide on Car A and it breaks down on you in the middle of the road
Car A's break down opens up several new doors of possibilities, but what if you took car B?

So you are basically telling me that the decisions we make should be that of which lead us to more decisions.
Not those of which bring us to an end point.

So by using "best result" you fill the "end point" variable.

See I can understand things you say
Though I may have confused you...

But my issue with that is, how does it affect anything?
That's the one thing it doesn't explain to me, how hitting an endpoint type decision affects science working out evolution.
Because those types of decisions produce facts, results that are proven.

Were you saying that because we confine ourselves to study only what we know will lead us away from endpoints?
Or were you trying to explain that we are wasting our time because there is no overall evolutionary endpoint?

Are you saying that we hurt ourselves from seeking such knowledge because it takes away from the "several doors" variable?
Or that because we restrict ourselves from the "several doors" variable we cannot find what we seek?

Regardless of that philosophical mess I just made, you cannot provide evidence against evolution.
All you can do is complain about how evolutionists act, even though you know none of us listen.

Rethink who you are talking to here, sir.
When you play a ball game with the science side of the world it's always the 9th inning and you're down by 3 points.
There are no outs, and you got a guy on first base.
So you have to play your game correctly, with no faults, so that you can lead your side to victory.
To my knowledge not a single person on your side has done so yet.

I do not believe you will be the first.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So that goes in line with direct multiverse, where a decision you make one way is made a different way in an alternate universe.
Don't mind my example, it helps me to understand things such as these.

I can easily kill your argument with multiverse, but that's off topic so I need to do it in an evolutionary theorist's sense.
The way I will be doing that is by using the example of chance.

There is a high probability that everything that has happened up to this point has had no influence and has only been done by chance.
The evolution type way of saying this would be, "we developed this way for reasons that came from the environment".
An example would be that we could have the same brain structure as we do now but in the body of some form of ape, then we'd be ape culture.

How I'm going to use this against you is that we are at this point by chance.
What influenced our decisions to the creation of today's decisions?
How you were raised might have affected you beliefs, just as how I was raised has affected mine.
But let's go back latter in history.
What if science never became a thing?
Or nobody ever came up with concept of there being a God?

I'm presenting "what if" scenarios and assuming you know the reason why.
You are presenting to me a "what if" scenario, but worded differently.

"A decision is to make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not."
Making possibilities goes in line with chance.
You make the possibility of something happening with every decision made.

Car A is more worn down but gets better Gas than Car B
You decide on Car A and it breaks down on you in the middle of the road
Car A's break down opens up several new doors of possibilities, but what if you took car B?

So you are basically telling me that the decisions we make should be that of which lead us to more decisions.
Not those of which bring us to an end point.

So by using "best result" you fill the "end point" variable.

See I can understand things you say
Though I may have confused you...

But my issue with that is, how does it affect anything?
That's the one thing it doesn't explain to me, how hitting an endpoint type decision affects science working out evolution.
Because those types of decisions produce facts, results that are proven.

Were you saying that because we confine ourselves to study only what we know will lead us away from endpoints?
Or were you trying to explain that we are wasting our time because there is no overall evolutionary endpoint?

Are you saying that we hurt ourselves from seeking such knowledge because it takes away from the "several doors" variable?
Or that because we restrict ourselves from the "several doors" variable we cannot find what we seek?

Regardless of that philosophical mess I just made, you cannot provide evidence against evolution.
All you can do is complain about how evolutionists act, even though you know none of us listen.

Rethink who you are talking to here, sir.
When you play a ball game with the science side of the world it's always the 9th inning and you're down by 3 points.
There are no outs, and you got a guy on first base.
So you have to play your game correctly, with no faults, so that you can lead your side to victory.
To my knowledge not a single person on your side has done so yet.

I do not believe you will be the first.

The main point of creationism is acceptance of subjectivity. Besides that it validates subjectivity, it can also describe how things are chosen in the universe, which is the fact and science part to creationism.

The value, worth, should, etc. is in the agency of the decision. The result of the decision has no worth. Worth is subjective, therefore it can only apply to agency. Objectivity applies to the result.

How things are decided is for example, at first anything is equally possible. The universe can start out fully formed with planets and all, or it can start out with a singular zero. Then after the first decision is made, then possibilities around what has already been chosen become more likely.

For DNA, the DNA system is a world in it's own right, same as these 3D computer games are worlds in their own right. In the DNA world a representation of the adult organism is chosen, after which the organism develops to adulthood guided by this representation.

Those are some of the ways how things are chosen in the universe.

 

[JM2C]

A lie, one of so many that you repeat without fact checking them.

That picture was drawn by an artist and published in a magazine. No scientist was involved in the process at all. In fact AT THE TIME the scientist who misidentified the tooth stated that the picture had no scientific relevance:

I’ve read the same thing from wiki but the “No scientist was involved in the process at all” is not accurate at all. Evolutionist and scientist Grafton Elliot Smith was involved in that process.

Excerpts from evolutionist’s website: “The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication.” Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

I was thinking; when they added those words “collaborating” and “not for a scientific publication” was it before or after it was discovered to be a hoax? It’s like teach them in schools first and the plan B is, it was the “illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication.”

It’s like John Scopes [the Monkey trial], who knew nothing about evolution, “COLLABORATING” with George William Hunter’s Civic Biology.

George William HunterwroteCivic Biology, the text at the center of the Scopes "monkey" trial.[1][2] In Civic Biology, Hunter advocated both eugenics and segregation. "The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country."[3] –Wiki. I get chills down my spine reading this.

This is Galton’s theory.

Remember this?

Did you know it was scientists who revealed it was a hoax? Your sad devotion to this particular dead end is rather comical.

Did you really think that the “Piltdown Man” was just about a hoax? You’re so naïve man. What do you need to support the theory of evolution? A missing link! And this is what Dawson did, and not only that, the reason why he needed a missing link is because of Darwin’s Descent of Man which argued that some races of men were more highly evolved than others. If fossils of Modern Man appeared very early in Britain, then this could be proof that the British Race was the most highly evolved.

Germany, France and Spain found their missing links, but Dawson, a British, found none. IOW, the first country that finds the missing link is above all other races. Darwin’s Evolution is about racial supremacy and eliminating other races.

“Another of these interpretations, later known aseugenics, was put forth by Darwin's cousin,Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones. In Galton's view, social institutions such aswelfareandinsane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors."

Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections of Descent of Man to discussion of Galton's theories.

Many countries adopted eugenic policies meant to improve the genetic stock of their countries. Such programs often included both "positive" measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and "negative" measures such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. People deemed unfit to reproduce often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges of different IQ tests, criminals and deviants, and members of disfavored minority groups.

The eugenics movement reached a climax in Nazi Germany where a state policy of racial hygiene based on eugenic principles led to the Holocaust and the murder by the German state of at least 10 million people.” –Wiki

The “illustrator” of the Nebraska Man [Pig’s tooth] and John Scopes [the monkey trial] were nothing but scapegoats by these evolutionists.

Scientist made a man out of a pig and the pig made a monkey out of scientist.

 

[JM2C]

Your comment merely fallacy I pointed out for you. You point has no merit and is irrelevant. Try to not use fallacious reasoning next time. I can be more careful in typing, I can proof read before posting.

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

Thank you.

 

[JM2C]

Actually they did, it is called mummification in which blood samples can last for centuries.

You mean if there is blood then it could be tested, right? What method should they use for testing this kind of blood? Should they test it for age first, for authenticity, if it really came from that generation?

 

[JM2C]

In the end you have admitted you can not provide anything but hearsay evidence of a virgin birth which is the same amount provided for every other claim outside of your religion. You only accept the claim since it is /drum roll part of your religious ideology. Look up the word hearsay.

”Hearsay” The very reason why the NT must be written during the first generation of Christianity is, “the eyewitnesses and servants of the word –Luke 1:2” are still alive and could pass “the exact truth about the things you have been taught –Luke 1:4” on to the next generation.

What happen if nothing was written during the first generation and all of them died?

Everything from the next generation’s accounts would be nothing but hearsay, but God did not plan it that way, did He?

So, any accounts different or does not harmonize with the NT did not come from the first generation’s accounts on Christianity, i.e., [Christ earthly ministry, His death, burial and resurrection] and therefore, all of them are nothing but hearsay, right? IOW, anything you were or are saying, if it does not agree with the NT, are nothing but hearsay, right?

 

[JM2C]

Common sense should tell us that there are no examples of pathogenesis on record, tested nor proven. Thus the Null Hypothesis is the common sense position until evidence is produced.

What is pathogenesis?

 

[JM2C]

Actually it was due to contamination in the lab since only 1 lab with one sample produced the error in the dating. Other labs dating was correct. Also one error does not invalid the method since there are a far greater number of accurate dating then incorrect dates. To used a flawed sample as an example is to ignore the key fact that it was flawed and that the lab was unable to date it.

CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

The Creationist work at Mount St Helens | ReligiousForums.com

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

Do you need more parameters on xenocryst and phenocryst, because when you argued that

Austin's flawed methods have been exposed for years. Your point is irrelevant.

You should be able to point out that the argument presented from talkorigins.org website is the “XENOCRYST” and if you read Emergence’s this is what he was arguing.

Just like the two verses, remember? I thought you knew the argument there and that was reason why I asked you if you can explain those 2 verses. IOW, before you make a point to an argument it would be easier to answer back if you read the whole report first instead of conjecturing. It was not about “unable to date it”. It’s was about different dates on different minerals with excess argon or argon occlusion within the minerals.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We went thru with this already. K-Ar dating methods were not really accurate based on the test of Mt. St Helen’s igneous rocks.

And this has already been explained as well. You simply did not accept the answer.

“give evolution credit for being able to provide all of the evidence” There is no argument there at all, but read the following anyway:


Dr. Kenneth Oakley of the British Museum, Joseph Weiner, an Oxford professor of physical anthropology, and Oxford anthropologist Wilfrid Le Gros Clark were the one who discovered that the Piltdown Man was indeed a hoax. It was Dr. Kenneth Oakley of the British Museum who first discovered it in 1949, and in 1953 Dr. Joseph Weiner and Dr. Oakley after studying on the fossils discovered that it was indeed a fake, and in “November 20, 1953 they reported their findings in the bulletin of the Natural History Museum.”

From the book Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take the Heat on page 112 it says,

Evolutionist and paleontologist Joseph Weiner sums up the study of human evolution: “it is quite that modern man could not have arisen from any ape, let alone a monkey, at all similar to those of today. ….It is ridiculous to describe man as a “naked” or any other kind of ape.:”

In the following statement on human evolution Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. agrees with Weiner: “On the fundamental level, it becomes a rigorously demonstrable fact that there are no transitional types, and the so-called missing links are indeed non-existent.”

In the same page, Dr. Robert Martin, senior research fellow at the Zoological Society of London, concludes: In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins which were based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity.

You notice you are quoting an "evolutionist" in your argument? How did they know that the fossil was fake? What about the fossil did they recognize that allowed them to come to the conclusion it was fake? Against what background did they know this? It was against the background of other real fossils that really exist as non-hoaxes.

And I don't much care for the opinion of people who were proven wrong over the course of history and science. Newton was brilliant. Brought us calculus, fundamental laws of motion, ect. However he also believed in alchemy.

Built an entire man from a pig’s tooth is not a hoax?

View attachment 9480
This drawing of nebraska man was formed in the minds of evolutionists from a pig tooth.

It was a miclassification. Not a deliberate hoax. This is well understood and why it was wrong.

Creationist do not have the samples in their hands. They are in Mary Schweitzer’s lab, an evolutionist. Always remember this, Creationist do not have the upper hand here, but the evolutionist because they have the samples.

Have you ever thought that it would do the evolutionist a big favor if it found that it was not dateable by 14C? You probably thinking that there is a possibility that it might be dated by 14C and that would prove all those millions of years of evolution were nothing but lies, right? People are always afraid to find the truth.

People aren't afraid of trying to find the truth. What they don't to do is engage actual resources to refute baseless creationist claims. Sagan had a good idea which was to not even publicly debate creationism. It gives the illusion that the two theories are on equal grounds. So should we waste time and effort to disprove the flat earth society? In your personal opinion?

The pattern is there so the assumption should be the same, right? I not really sure if satan would do such thing because his line of work is just to make people believe in lies.

Burying false evidence is a possibility. When Dr. Johanson found Lucy he got about 2 weeks before his funds dried up.

Roy Holt asked "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" It was very difficult, but Johanson did manage to remember that it was found "60 to 70 meters [over 200 feet] lower in the strata and two to three kilometers [1.24-1.86 miles] away." "Then, why are you so sure it belonged to Lucy?"

Answer: "Anatomical similarity." If that is "science" to Johanson, it is little wonder why he says it is so tentative.

“Anatomical similarity” according to Dr. Johanson but read the transcript from PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts...

DON JOHANSON: "The ape that stood up, it was a revolutionary idea. We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because

(1) the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human,

(2) but the shape of her hip didn't.

(3) Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that

(4) Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human."

Four testimonials from the man who discovered it.

JOHANSON: "After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud, must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore."

OWEN LOVEJOY: "This has caused the two bones, in fact, to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position."

Meaning: "Impossible for a human, right?

JOHANSON: "The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human."

Get that? After using a Dremel tool to remove the entire sections from the pelvis, Voila !!; it was bi-pedal.

JOHANSON: "Had they begun to develop a human-size brain to go with their human walk? Lucy couldn't help us there. Her skull was almost entirely missing. So knowing the exact size of Lucy's brain was the crucial bit of missing evidence. But from the few skull fragments we had, it looked surprisingly small. "

Neat theory. Except Lucy has passed every scrutiny (and trust me there has been a lot) and still came out on top.

Lucy's pelvis was more like a Chimp than a human. That was partially the point of it. Lucy did walking but not as a pure bipedal like ourselves. It was the first step in our evolutionary line of bipedalism. The hip angle is slightly shifted from a chimps and the knee's are better suited for walking on the ground than for climbing.

 

[JM2C]

Only if you take the definition of divinity out of context that was used in their time. Not the modern perverted definition. Just your knowledge, divinity was given to mortal men back then. The Emperor had it long before jesus did.

Agreed.There is plenty of evidence in the NT for Jesus divinity. Just because the trinity slowly evolved hundreds of years later, does not mean there is no evidence in support.

What were you agreeing here again? John 1:1, wasn’t it? Based on the NT, according to you, Christ divinity is God and you based that on that particular argument with the JW about John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, therefore, Lord Jesus is God, i.e., based on that argument on which you supported it with the word “AGREED”.

But now you are saying different things

Or that lord was just a man who was the head of a household back then.

Who is the liar now?

So I was correct, you DO NOT know the mans real name.

Are you thinking of the Piso family?

 

[Deathbydefault]

The main point of creationism is acceptance of subjectivity. Besides that it validates subjectivity, it can also describe how things are chosen in the universe, which is the fact and science part to creationism.

The value, worth, should, etc. is in the agency of the decision. The result of the decision has no worth. Worth is subjective, therefore it can only apply to agency. Objectivity applies to the result.

How things are decided is for example, at first anything is equally possible. The universe can start out fully formed with planets and all, or it can start out with a singular zero. Then after the first decision is made, then possibilities around what has already been chosen become more likely.

For DNA, the DNA system is a world in it's own right, same as these 3D computer games are worlds in their own right. In the DNA world a representation of the adult organism is chosen, after which the organism develops to adulthood guided by this representation.

Those are some of the ways how things are chosen in the universe.

Just because I can understand your reasoning now does not fully validate it in any way.
So I'm going to list off my two issues with what you are saying.

1. You're cherry picking what objectivity and subjectivity can apply to.

There are several situations you can use both words and you picked one for each that you liked and claimed them as correct.
Objectivity can apply to the result, but it doesn't have to.
Using objectivity in every day terms is a great example, "I like ice cream" is an objective statement.
Subjectivity's main application is to morals and beliefs, it does not use facts.

Objectivity = Facts
Subjectivity = Opinions

2. You use terrible analogy's to make your points.

You cannot compare the creation of humans and human creations, it doesn't work that way.
It's basically like saying we are the Gods to those in the 3D world that someone created, where characters can't even think for themselves.

In the DNA and Genetics world a large portion of copied DNA is passed onto the child by their family.
All the traits you have are copies or combinations of your family members, unless you have some genetic defect.

After thought:

I also believe that creationism is subjective, as in based without facts, but I do not believe it can validate itself.
You can not use an opinion to validate an opinion, in my eyes.

"That was wrong of you..."
"Actually that was right of me..."

See how that doesn't make sense?
It doesn't make sense in actual context either.

Last bit here,

You implied that evolutionary theorists believe that everything was just 'there'.
We don't believe that either, we just think that a "big bang" is more plausible than some random omnipotent thing in the aspect of how we got here.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Just because I can understand your reasoning now does not fully validate it in any way.
So I'm going to list off my two issues with what you are saying.

1. You're cherry picking what objectivity and subjectivity can apply to.

There are several situations you can use both words and you picked one for each that you liked and claimed them as correct.
Objectivity can apply to the result, but it doesn't have to.
Using objectivity in every day terms is a great example, "I like ice cream" is an objective statement.
Subjectivity's main application is to morals and beliefs, it does not use facts.

Objectivity = Facts
Subjectivity = Opinions

2. You use terrible analogy's to make your points.

You cannot compare the creation of humans and human creations, it doesn't work that way.
It's basically like saying we are the Gods to those in the 3D world that someone created, where characters can't even think for themselves.

In the DNA and Genetics world a large portion of copied DNA is passed onto the child by their family.
All the traits you have are copies or combinations of your family members, unless you have some genetic defect.

After thought:

I also believe that creationism is subjective, as in based without facts, but I do not believe it can validate itself.
You can not use an opinion to validate an opinion, in my eyes.

"That was wrong of you..."
"Actually that was right of me..."

See how that doesn't make sense?
It doesn't make sense in actual context either.

Last bit here,

You implied that evolutionary theorists believe that everything was just 'there'.
We don't believe that either, we just think that a "big bang" is more plausible than some random omnipotent thing in the aspect of how we got here.

Creationism has the same structure that people broadly use in daily life in common discourse.

The statement "I like icecream" is an opinion. That means in reaching the conclusion there was an alternative available, like to say it is disgusting, and the word like refers to a love for the icecream, from which love the words "I like icecream" are chosen. Always with opinions it has the structure of choosing about what it is that chooses. In this case there was a choice between like and disgust, and "what it is that chooses" is the love for icecream.

Expression of emotion, with free will, thus choosing the words "i like icecream" from available alternatives.

There was a TV program of people with eating disorders, many of which patients eat only a 1 thing, like only soup. Each and every day, only soup. And then in the course of the program they were introduced to other foods. There is no automatic reaction of like or dislike to foods, there is a whole morale behind taste, a free will which has to decide on it, even if many such decisions occur at lower levels than rational thought.

There is no science paper entitled "I like icecream, yummie." For you to put that in the fact category is a total breakdown of subjectivity.

objectivity = to have evidence of a thing force to produce a model of it, resulting in a fact
subjectivity = to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinon

Again,

creator
chooses
opinion
spiritual domain

creation
chosen
fact
material domain

There is nothing aribtrary about such categorization, and besides, the categorization works for thousands of years already. With such categorization we can easily avoid social darwinism, confusing what ought with is, avoid stating the worth of people as fact.

With 3D DNA worlds, I am saying in the future we will be able to hook up the signal from DNA to a 3D computersimulation, and then look directly into the DNA world. Where we will see a representation of the adult organism, and all sorts of other things besides, like representations of the sun and the moon etc..

 

[Shad]

Do you need more parameters on xenocryst and phenocryst, because when you argued that You should be able to point out that the argument presented from talkorigins.org website is the “XENOCRYST” and if you read Emergence’s this is what he was arguing.

I am not arguing Emergence's point so you comment is irrelevant. All I did was provide links. Beside if you had actually looked at the links and the citations you would see it addresses both xenocryst and phenocryst. However you do not read anything people link to you....

Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

Just like the two verses, remember? I thought you knew the argument there and that was reason why I asked you if you can explain those 2 verses. IOW, before you make a point to an argument it would be easier to answer back if you read the whole report first instead of conjecturing. It was not about “unable to date it”. It’s was about different dates on different minerals with excess argon or argon occlusion within the minerals.

Use that line before you have proven you didn't read anything I linked nor the citations with the links.

 

[Shad]

”Hearsay” The very reason why the NT must be written during the first generation of Christianity is, “the eyewitnesses and servants of the word –Luke 1:2” are still alive and could pass “the exact truth about the things you have been taught –Luke 1:4” on to the next generation.

What happen if nothing was written during the first generation and all of them died?

Everything from the next generation’s accounts would be nothing but hearsay, but God did not plan it that way, did He?

So, any accounts different or does not harmonize with the NT did not come from the first generation’s accounts on Christianity, i.e., [Christ earthly ministry, His death, burial and resurrection] and therefore, all of them are nothing but hearsay, right? IOW, anything you were or are saying, if it does not agree with the NT, are nothing but hearsay, right?

The NT is hearsay since none of the people that know Jesus wrote about him.

What would have happened? The NT was written was what happened. You are behind on your biblical scholarship

Yes all are hearsay. Every credible biblical scholars knows this.

 

[Shad]

Creation theory can describe the facts of how things are decided in the universe. There is no freedom in evolution theory, which means it is not suitable to describe origins of anything.

The evidence does not support a creator.

Evolution theory acknowledges sentient creates are capable of responses not dictated by instincts or evolutionary mechanics. It is how people taught apes sign language which has no basis within the ape itself but is a construct of the mind. Evolution is not about origins but changes over time. You conflate abiogenesis with evolution.

Keep on babbling about a subject you have never studied, it is amusing to say the least.

 

[David M]

I’ve read the same thing from wiki but the “No scientist was involved in the process at all” is not accurate at all. Evolutionist and scientist Grafton Elliot Smith was involved in that process.

And the context for that was scientists who examined the tooth, misidentified it and published scientific papers about it.

Excerpts from evolutionist’s website: “The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication.” Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

So a scientist who was not involved in the identification of the tooth and lived in another country helped an artist prepare an illustration that did not purport to be an accurate reconstruction of Nebraska Man in any way?

And what Smith actually said was (from the same site you used):

"Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted."

 

[outhouse]

Who is the liar now?

Are you looking in a mirror?


Jesus divinity was a mortal thing, its why he died on a cross.

You just lack the knowledge of how divinity is defined

 

[outhouse]

Are you thinking of the Piso family?

So I was correct, you DO NOT know the mans real name.

 

[outhouse]

What were you agreeing here again?

The copy paste part.

But now you are saying different things

No, you just do not understand the academic context I follow .