Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[dad]

Right. Because people poofing out of dust and the like is totally believable...

Ah, so you must have intimate detailed knowledge of the process by which Jehovah molded a pile of dust into a fully formed adult human male.

Let's have it!

More unsupported assertions.

More unsupported assertions. Counterfactual ones, at that.

Wow, grammar much? Not even sure what that was supposed to mean.

Says the desperado that dismisses all that he cannot understand by claiming that physical laws were totally different in olden tymes so as to prop up the tales of numerologists.


Like I said... nothing.

Our position regarding how God created is not one of a peer, where we look at details of Almighty power. Our position is to believe or not. With science our position is more as peers.

The priesthood of science is peers. Peer review. Comparing themselves with themselves. That is how they became fools.

 

[dad]

What you did do, was use fallacious reasoning in an attempt to make your argument.
I'm still waiting for you to address that, instead of pushing the blame onto someone or something else.

Truth is not faulty. The true basis science uses in models of the past must be looked at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our position regarding how God created is not one of a peer, where we look at details of Almighty power. Our position is to believe or not. With science our position is more as peers.

The priesthood of science is peers. Peer review. Comparing themselves with themselves. That is how they became fools.

No, pretending that unsubstantiated and refuted myths are real is how one becomes a fool.

 

[dad]

No, pretending that unsubstantiated and refuted myths are real is how one becomes a fool.

Guess we can take your word...or God's.


Rom 1:22

 

[nPeace]

I'm saying anyone that says Genesis 2 has no chronological order is no scholar at all but is a poser.

Thank God "experts" opinions do not qualified a person to determine what is and what is not, where the Bible is concerned.
I would say anyone who reads Genesis 2, just verses 7, 8, 9, and 10, and argues that the verses follow a chronological order, would clearly disqualify themselves from telling me anything about the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guess we can take your word...or God's.


Rom 1:22

You have no clue as to what God's word is. All that you have is belief. Knowledge trumps mere belief.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Soon as it sinks in that your beliefs cannot be used on all the evidences to get the outcome you want...boom. Ha

It's the other way around. The evidence convinces me. And because it is the evidence that is convincing me, it is inappropriate to call it a belief. Belief is when you take something by faith, not by evidence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank God "experts" opinions do not qualified a person to determine what is and what is not, where the Bible is concerned.

Actually here is how it works with logic:
If the experts disagree, it is fallacious to appeal to the experts.
If the experts agree, it is logical to appeal to the experts.

Scholars in Genesis 1 agree that it is a creation myth. We are talking about real scholars that approach Genesis 1 as a body of writing. Not wannabes that have decided before even looking at it that it is the historical, scientific, inerrant word of God. Such wannabes have far too much of an axe to grind to be considered scholars. They are not looking at the evidence to reach conclusions. Rather, their preconceived ideas filter their views of the facts.

 

[dad]

It's the other way around. The evidence convinces me. And because it is the evidence that is convincing me, it is inappropriate to call it a belief. Belief is when you take something by faith, not by evidence.

 

[dad]

It's the other way around. The evidence convinces me. And because it is the evidence that is convincing me, it is inappropriate to call it a belief. Belief is when you take something by faith, not by evidence.

What evidence is there for a same nature in the past that does not first assume one?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Guess we can take your word...or God's.


Rom 1:22

Your mistake is that you are limiting God. You are refusing to allow God to use the genre of myth, which is a very powerful genre indeed, to teach eternal truths, despite not being historical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence is there for a same nature in the past that does not first assume one?

oh dad! You still have it backwards.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What evidence is there for a same nature in the past that does not first assume one?

Evolution does not assume that mankind has always had the same nature. As elementary primates we did not have a sense of right and wrong. This moral sentience was something that developed much much later, IMHO when we were homo sapiens. Chimps only have a very rudimentary sense of right and wrong -- nothing even approaching our own.

As far as something like natural laws changing, the DEFAULT is that they have stayed the same. If they have changed, it is up to you to show evidence that can be sensed or measured that this changed has taken place, and, well, you have no evidence to that effect.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Truth is not faulty. The true basis science uses in models of the past must be looked at.

models can be used for explanations and conclusions. But they are not evidence. Evidence must be sensed and measured. Evidence that proves hypotheses... "If evolution were true, we would see X..."

 

[dad]

Your mistake is that you are limiting God. You are refusing to allow God to use the genre of myth, which is a very powerful genre indeed, to teach eternal truths, despite not being historical.

His word is truth.

In 17:17

 

[dad]

Evolution does not assume that mankind has always had the same nature. As elementary primates we did not have a sense of right and wrong. This moral sentience was something that developed much much later, IMHO when we were homo sapiens. Chimps only have a very rudimentary sense of right and wrong -- nothing even approaching our own.

As far as something like natural laws changing, the DEFAULT is that they have stayed the same. If they have changed, it is up to you to show evidence that can be sensed or measured that this changed has taken place, and, well, you have no evidence to that effect.

Not knowing is not a good default.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

His word is truth.

In 17:17

Myths ARE true. They teach us eternal truths and values. They simply aren't historical. The same can be said of parables.

 

[dad]

models can be used for explanations and conclusions. But they are not evidence. Evidence must be sensed and measured. Evidence that proves hypotheses... "If evolution were true, we would see X..."

One hopes that explanations and conclusions would not be something other beliefs could also use for their ideas.

For example the fossil record fits creation followed by a time in a diffedifferent nature followed by this present nature. There is no requirement to interpret it by your methodology.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not knowing is not a good default.

Let me give you an example. If you let go of your groceries, do you expect them to fall to the ground? Of course you do. You simply know they will because from infancy you have learned a law of nature. You know that this law is dependable, it is going to be the same every time. That's not "not knowing."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

One hopes that explanations and conclusions would not be something other beliefs could also use for their ideas.

For example the fossil record fits creation followed by a time in a diffedifferent nature followed by this present nature. There is no requirement to interpret it by your methodology.

The fossil record certainly does NOT fit each animal being created according to its kind, nor does the geological record support a young earth. You are in complete denial. There is zero, zip, zilch to support your idea. You have basically made it up out of whole cloth.