Creationists really are not a good place to go looking for anything factual. You will not find a Creationist with a PhD in Biology. From an accredited school, anyway.
-
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!
Neat Video Explaining the Evidence of Our Relationship To the Other Great Apes
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
My bad, I meant to say if evolution is proved false does that prove that a deity exists? No dude, it doesn't, there could be any number of other explanations before we get to a deity.
I agree 7k years would seem far too late in light of these discoveries. This date is taken from Christians, so I should distance myself from them, as the Qur'an gives no dates. It just mentions there were civilisations that existed in the past and I don't know if you read my post no 6, explaining there were many Adams before us.
Here's a short video from Scholars discussing Dinosaurs and the age of the Universe:
Peace
No worries. (*thinks how do you prove to an atheist, the existence of a Creator?) I don't think you can.
But let me ask you, IF a Creator did exist, would you agree that He* could only be ONE and He alone would be worthy of worship? He would have no need for a son, daughter, wife etc.
*He is used out of respect, for The Creator is without gender.
james bond
Well-Known Member
The vids are from at least 2007. Much of this was refuted around 2011.1. Kitzmiller v Dover was about "a case in Pennsylvania challenging the inclusion of a one-minute presentation on Intelligent Design to precede the evolution curriculum, and the inclusion of "Of Pandas and People" in public school libraries. The court ruled that the statement was unconstitutional and that Intelligent Design was not science. Thus, it has nothing to do with creation, but ID. You even make this simple error in the OP. Atheists are usually wrong.
2. It's circular reasoning to classify humans as primates, e.g. humans and apes are related because they are both primates. Humans and apes have similar DNA and traits so they are primates.
3. There is no transitional form despite the attempts to classify some fossils as transitional forms. Besides, there aren't enough of these fossils.
4. Paleoanthropologits have classified humans and apes as two different genera.
5. Evolution from branchiation to bipedalism isn't an advantage.
Brachiation works poorly where there's no dense jungle.
Bipedalism let us spread to plains, deserts, boreal forests, waterways, buildings, & Airstream trailers.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Toward the end of the video the speaker, Ken Miller, says he's a Roman Catholic.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
We await your evidence. Mere claim ain't going to cut it.
OMG, One of thee preeminent pieces of proof that ID is creationism was the change in language in Pandas. The term ID "intelligent design" was specifically created to replace and take the onus off "creationism." Let me quote a site that explains this attempted ploy by creationists to cover up the bad rep creationism had acquired.
"For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down.
The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!
Scanned images of this passage, in its various versions, are shown below. [I've only included two.]
The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!
Scanned images of this passage, in its various versions, are shown below. [I've only included two.]
Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41:
Please note the tell-tale transitional gaff between the two: "cdesign proponentsists"
To further illustrate this deliberate change from the use of "creation/ist" to "intelligent design" in Pandas a word count of each was made in the the various editions of the book through its publishing life:
Here are the now-famous word-count charts used by Barbara Forrest in her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover. These charts showed that the words "creation" and "creationist" were systematically changed to "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in the drafts for the book Of Pandas and People, in the aftermath of the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard .
This evidence was so deemed so damning that many felt the case could have been decided on it alone.
BTW, reprinting quotes from other sources without proper attribution or a link amounts to plagiarism.
I strongly suggest you look up the term "circular reasoning."
There are hundreds of transitional forms despite your uneducated attempt to deny them---I'm assuming you have no education in paleoanthropology or any of its related fields.
Haven't checked how Paleoanthropologists have been classifying humans and the other great apes of late, but I do know that currently primatologists classify the great apes in four genera:
Pongo: orangutans
Gorilla: gorillas
Pan: Chimpanzees
Homo: humans
Gorilla: gorillas
Pan: Chimpanzees
Homo: humans
For ground dwelling species it certainly would have been.
.
Last edited:
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
I think there's truth to this (and me an atheist)!
But if anything is going to do it, calm discourse where people both talk and listen will.
I think much the same in terms of 'convincing' theists, to be honest. My goal is generally just to get people thinking. Thinking people with empathy don't scare me. Fundamentalists shouting slogans (be they theist, atheist, religious or political) do.
Creationists don't stay dumbstruck for long. Their faith was not a product of reason, and reason is unlikely to shake it.
Dr Jean Lightner directly addresses Prof. Miller's testimony: A Tale of Two Chromosomes
More from Answers in Genesis:
Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site”
450 years ago the evidence for Earth orbiting the sun was causing a similar crisis of faith. The church eventually reconfigured its world-view to account for the inconvenient data. Let's hope it manages to do the same with the ToE.
To be honest, if I didn't post here, I wouldn't think there was any crisis of faith over the ToE. At least, not in first world countries.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
I don't think you can "prove" anything much about existence, it is not how we get through life is it? We go by the quality of the evidence and the balance of probability. For example I believe Iceland exists, but I've never been to Iceland to "prove" it exists. However, the evidence for Iceland existing is copious, testimony from people who live in Iceland or have visited it, aerial pictures of Iceland etc., and if I really wanted to "prove" it to myself it would be easy to book a flight to visit the place. It seems very improbable that Iceland is a fiction that people have conspired to invent for all these years (why would they?) so I believe Iceland exists despite never having been there.
The existence of a deity is much harder to "prove", especially as every deity ever invented is conveniently invisible to the naked eye, I cant hop on a plane to visit one, I cant look on Google Earth to see one. The evidence for the existence of a deity pretty much relies on ancient scripture (from a time when people were superstitious and much less well informed about ourselves and our environment) and I consider that to be poor evidence. The world is full of people from different religions who will give personal testimony about the truth of their own religion, but it seems eminently possible they are all mistaken/deceived/indoctrinated. Your religion is very much influenced by the culture you grow up in, if you are raised to be a Muslim from childhood it is pretty damn likely you will grow up to be a Muslim, the same applies to every other religion. Possible then that religion is an entirely manmade endeavour, owing nothing to the existence of a deity? Oh yes, which I why I am inclined to believe a deity or deities do not exist.
Once upon a time I may have agreed with you that monotheism makes more sense than polytheism, but these days I would say what difference does it make? Why is it more likely or rational that there is only one god? We are talking about invisible communities of entities, that cannot be demonstrated to exist, we are just guessing at it. Holy writ? Well as I've said I consider that not to be a persuasive or authoritative source to point us in the right direction.
Has it never occurred to you that it is a bit odd for a deity to demand or expect worship from the creatures it made? If you were god of this planet would you rather not just let the creatures get on with it and be happy? It seems to me that anything that demands worship and admiration, is wholly unworthy of worship and admiration.
Very good use of logic and common sense. World full of religions and indoctrination, yes I couldn't agree more.
Imagine the following if you wouldn't mind:
There is a Creator that exists beyond Time and Space, who is a uncaused cause constantly creating multiverses beyond our comprehension. In our case, He does this to benefit his creation, He requires nothing from us, but is able to grant eternal life in a place of peace and tranquillity. He sends us down clear guidance on how to live a life pleasing to Him and in exchange for following this instruction manual, one is permitted to enter the peace He owns.
There have been many creations that inhabited the Earth before us and each one possessing intelligence both close to and beyond ours were sent information via Messengers. In all one report says, 124,000 Messengers have been sent.
They all taught the same thing: God is ONE. Worship Him alone. That's it. Beyond that, mankind was taught to be kind to one another, feed the poor etc, some might have been told not to eat certain foods, whilst others didn't face such restrictions; different produce in different parts of the World.
As mankind spread and migrated to different continents, over the generations they would start mixing what they had been taught by their forefathers with what they observed around them, and so truth would be mixed with falsehood. Fire is good, it has power, perhaps there's a God of fire? Look back 7-20,000 years and from the last Adam pbuh of mankind to see how people have interacted with different communities and taken onboard their beliefs, and as you say, today we can see Thousands of beliefs and many many gods.
So how is one to navigate all these beliefs and myriad of gods? Simply remember God is ONE and look for a belief system, which has a central theme of ONEness, claims to come from that Creator, has the last and uncorrupted/unchanged message.
I submit the following video to lend some evidence for the above:
Fair enough so far?
We can look at evidences and the balance of probability in due course. I'm just trying to establish how strong the firewall is around you at this point
The reason why it's important to accept God is One for Atheists even on a logical level and nothing more as the case may be, is so they keep an ace up their sleeve for when they eventually pass away from this realm. This is a free gift from one Brit to another, requiring nothing on your part but the use of logic and common sense.
Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe. Qur'an 21:22
Imagine YOU designed artificial intelligence and there were humanoids walking around doing wonderful things, building Cities and making technological advancements, entering Space and beyond, always working to better human development. And YET the rest of mankind doesn't not acknowledge the gift YOU gave them, no mention of your achievement anywhere, no Nobel Peace Prize. NOTHING at all <<<< Is that being just? similarly, is taking 20 mins out of 24 hrs to acknowledge the Creator unjust?
Food for thought.
Lastly children are born with a natural ability to distinguish right from wrong, as if their DNA has been programmed that way, and as we grow up, people are naturally inclined to search for existential meaning and purpose, those that don't find answers are more prone to suffering depression etc.
Consider the following verse:
And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware." Qur'an 7:172
Peace
Thief
Rogue Theologian
So......a Creator.....capable of forming an entire universe.....
lacks the ability? to fuse a few molecules
and redirect a new branch of species......
the garden event is written as an experiment.....genetic manipulation included
I am not surprised.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Was it cold in that library? Why are they wearing fur hats?
Altfish
Veteran Member
I've only checked the first person listed. He does not have a Ph D in Biology
james bond
Well-Known Member
You must've missed the evidence that showed this whole thread was wrong. Again, it's about ID people and not creationists.
>>Mere claim ain't going to cut it<<
Not only that you missed circa 2011 on. Still stuck before 2007?
1. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. This explains all the different species, but we still can't create a human or ape-man from an ape.
2. Evolution is scientifically impossible. The atheist scientists will keep up the charade in order to keep getting funding. Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed.
3. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. Time does not make impossible things possible. For example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. So, what are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity!
4. How do rational people end up believing in evolution? It's called indoctrination. Our education system teaches evolution so kids grow up into adults who believe it.
5. Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. Their bone structure is different.
6. Species without a link shows evolution didn't happen. We should have hundreds of evidence of the missing links.
7. We found ape girl which shows ape bones similar to Lucy, but has more bones to show it was an ape.
8. Coelacanth turned out to be a living fossil. How embarrassing!
9. Man did not evolve from fish. Tiktaalik does not provide enough evidence for a tetrapod.
9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free
Skwim
Veteran Member
Perhaps if her article was on removing splinters from dog feet I might lend an ear, but as an avowed creationists who worked as a veterinarian for three years, no way!
Another biased and not so bright testament by a creationist. Its author, Jeffery Tompkins, is a "research associate" at the Institute for Creation Research. In 2012 his ICR News article on the sequencing of the Gorilla genome, Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution, was attacked as failing to understand the science. See HERE: A tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing
.
Last edited: