dad
Undefeated
Tell us how science would know if creation occurred? (sorry to interrupt your parroted ramblings)
-
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!
Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
We can see what people have to teach by reading their posts.
dad
Undefeated
Spammers should mot tell honest poster to watch anything.
Variation within taxa is the product of adaptation......adaptation is not proof for evolution on the scale suggested by science.
Evolutionary science teaches that all living things go back to a common source....that all life sprang from a single celled organism that just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason and found a way to replicate itself. From those primitive beginnings, all life, past and present, living and extinct, came into existence through gradual evolutionary changes and what is called branching. From amoebas to dinosaurs....its all the one process. Sorry I am not buying it....there is no actual proof for any of that.
When did life become suitable enough for classification into taxa, families and clades? Who put them there?
They had to cross taxonomic lines to even be included in a classification in the first place.
dad
Undefeated
The issue is how science would know if creation, for example of a man occurred or not. Focus.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
I admit you are wrong.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Whether or not you believe it, the truth is that's what evolutionary theory claims. Anybody who says otherwise is just factually wrong, and misrepresenting evolution.
If I repeatedly asserted that the Bible said "All men should be named Adam", it doesn't matter whether the story of Adam and Eve is true - what would matter is the fact that Bible says no such thing, and to assert it does is mistaken at best and dishonest at worst.
How can somebody expect to debate evolution when they constantly assert things about it that are not true?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is a creationist tactic that some take to the extreme.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
How are you still so unfamiliar with the basics of evolution?? I've explained this to you SO many times! Yet, here we go again:
Evolution = change in living populations over time.
So adaptation = evolution.
What you are confusing is "evolution" and "common ancestry". To say "adaptation is not evolution" is a contradiction, since "evolution" is the name we give the process that produces adaptation. It's like saying "a ball falling to earth is not evidence of gravity", or "observations of bacteria is not evidence of germs".
What you CAN say is that "adaptation is not evidence of common ancestry", which I assume is the statement you actually want to be making, and is at least more cogent - though still flawed. Adaptation in and of itself does not evidence the conclusion of common ancestry; common ancestry is a conclusion arrived at by taking into account the whole of all the information we have regarding 1) how life diversifies, 2) genetics and 3) the fossil record.
And the way evolution does this, despite clearly stating that populations of organisms do not cross taxonomic ranks, is quite simple.
Eukaryotes produce variations of eukaryotes - including vertebrates.
Vertebrates produce variations of vertebrates - including mammals.
Mammals produce variations of mammals - including apes.
Apes produce variations of apes - including humans.
See? Nothing need produce something "other than what it is", because everything is a variation of what comes before it.
Now that you have been told (for perhaps the hundredth time, to my knowledge) what the theory says, I expect you to never again repeat the blatant falsehood that evolution states that organisms cross taxonomic rank.
You're an intelligent person, Deeje, so I can only assume that either this is something you keep forgetting no matter how many times I and others tell you, or you are deliberately dishonest and keep repeating these falsehoods because you think it makes your position appear stronger. Please demonstrate to me that you are not being dishonest by taking these simple facts into account and never again repeat these false claims.
I think your trying to explain it away is a bit of a joke.You are free to believe whatever you wish. Science cannot prove what they theorize. Guesswork based on similarity is assumption, not fact. e.g. A similar earbone cannot make a four legged land dweller into a whale without a whole lot of supposition, followed by a bucketload of suggestions.You all swallow this stuff and then accuse those who support intelligent design of being short on evidence? That's funny.
"Evidence" used to promote what science "believes" is interpreted by them. Just like the Bible, it can be twisted to lead people to wrong conclusions.
Six scientists can give the same "evidence" six different interpretations with language such as "could have" or "might have" or "leads us to the conclusion that"....to indicate a possibility, not a provable fact. Only a small part of the evolutionary theory is based on fact. Using that little bit of fact, they manufacture a whole lot of conjecture. You havent noticed? Most people don't.
The biggest example of that is "speciation" which is based on "adaptation". In lab experiments this adaptive process is confined to a single species, and then, expanding on what has been observed they "suggest" that it can and did go much further. There is no proof that it ever did. "Evidence" is not "proof", it is interpreted to support a theory, but presented as if it were fact. There are very few facts in evolutionary science.
It's a snow job. Someone is having a lend of you all. In your haste to get rid of God, you have been willingly led into another unsubstantiated "belief system".
This finding of a supposedly 3.8 million year old skull is a bit of a joke when you read the circumstances of its discovery. Do you believe that some goat herder just picked the jaw bone up off the ground and then he was moved to find the archeologist, who just happened to find the skull a short distance away, lying on the ground in plain sight?
Seriously? You don't find that a bit unbelievable?
How easily convinced are you?
But I can understand how you must feel restrained by your dogmatic (anti-science) religion.
You can still live a spiritual life without rejecting rational thinking, but perhaps you would need to leave the Watchtower Society behind you first and find some more enlightened path.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Fossil evidence tells us about the anatomical similarities between humanoids of different historical ages. However, fossil tell us nothing of intelligence, personality and temperament. In other words, could someone tell by bone, what the IQ of a person will be or whether they will be more suited to playing a guitar or banjo? The answer is no. Bone tells about the surface, but not what is going on, inside in the mind.
The first humans in the bible is not about anatomy but about modern human temperaments; willpower and choice and the secondary center of consciousness. This can be inferred in Genesis 4, in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain who was son of Adam and Eve is banished by God for killing his brother Abel. Cain laments to God that whomever will come upon him will kill him. God gives him a talisman or mark for protection.
The question becomes who are these whomever, if Adam and Eve were the first two modern humans and Cain was now their only son. Do the math! There is no fourth human to be afraid of. Cain was referring to all the pre-humans; science evidence, who looked similar to Cain, but who were counted, by Cain, as part of the animals; more natural mental state.
Genesis 4:14-16
14Behold, this day You have driven me from the face of the earth, and from Your face I will be hidden; I will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15“Not so!” replied the LORD. “If anyone slays Cain, then Cain will be avengedsevenfold.” And the LORD placed a mark on Cain, so that no one who found him would killhim. 16So Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.…
Cain eventually gets married to one of the pre-human females. They can breed with Cain, due to anatomical similarities, while their children develop some of the advanced intellectual traits of their dad. Both science and religion are right but each tells half the story.
The first humans in the bible is not about anatomy but about modern human temperaments; willpower and choice and the secondary center of consciousness. This can be inferred in Genesis 4, in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain who was son of Adam and Eve is banished by God for killing his brother Abel. Cain laments to God that whomever will come upon him will kill him. God gives him a talisman or mark for protection.
The question becomes who are these whomever, if Adam and Eve were the first two modern humans and Cain was now their only son. Do the math! There is no fourth human to be afraid of. Cain was referring to all the pre-humans; science evidence, who looked similar to Cain, but who were counted, by Cain, as part of the animals; more natural mental state.
Genesis 4:14-16
14Behold, this day You have driven me from the face of the earth, and from Your face I will be hidden; I will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15“Not so!” replied the LORD. “If anyone slays Cain, then Cain will be avengedsevenfold.” And the LORD placed a mark on Cain, so that no one who found him would killhim. 16So Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.…
Cain eventually gets married to one of the pre-human females. They can breed with Cain, due to anatomical similarities, while their children develop some of the advanced intellectual traits of their dad. Both science and religion are right but each tells half the story.
Last edited:
The subject of the thread is not whether the history of life and human evolution was a creation by God or not. It is simply the objective verifiable evidence physical fossil evidence of human evolution. As a scientist and a believer in God and creation I believe God Created the nature of our physical existence, evolution and humanity simply by the Laws of Nature, and natural processes.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Which apes are these, oh fake expert on all things?
And here we have, yet again, a nice example of how the ignorant USE their ignorance as an argument.
YOU don't understand how a skull can tell us about bipedality, but INTELLIGENT and EDUCATED people can. Just because YOUR worldview dictates that "ignorance is bliss" does not mean this is true for all.
One hint - that I am sure you will dismiss as "jargon" (which means that you just never bothered to learn anything about the things you are brainwashed to reject) - foramen magnum.