The assumption of evolution can cause problems

[rusra02]

Well if the Guardian said it...! I mean the Guardian is a well known scholarly source of scientific information. :sarcastic

And New Scientist may be a "science journal" but only in that they write op-ed pieces about science. They are as scholarly and peer reviewed as someone's blog.

I think you miss the point. The public is bombarded with new discoveries "proving" evolution. The media was blitzed with news of Ida, including a book and TV documentary, according to AP. Then, when the facts come to light, the PUBLIC are not bombarded with these facts. More like, "Evolution is true, Evolution is true, oh, by the way, Ida isn't the proof of evolution we claimed it was, Evolution is true...."

 

[rusra02]

Do you call those parasites that infest human eyes and turn children blind a masterpiece? If your god, you call "Jehovah", created those worms, he certainly is not good at all (I can't swear here). I would love to call him or her anything but "good" or "creating masterpieces".

I can understand your anger over the human condition. I would certainly call the human eye a masterpiece. As to why humans suffer, the Bible explains that this was not God's purpose for mankind, and he has been taking steps over many centuries to end such suffering for all future time. (Romans 8:20,21)
Much of the suffering today is man-made, either through ignorance, greed, malice or a combination thereof.

 

[Krok]

Cranial capacity, or brain size, is no reliable indicator of intelligence.

You got that right. For example, the sperm wale has the biggest brain of around 8 kg. The shrew has got he biggest brain size when you compare the relationship of brain size to body mass.

However, the greater the brain size in the human family tree, the more the species recollects human traits.

Who's ever said that brain size equals intelligence? Were you making that up again?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I can understand your anger over the human condition. I would certainly call the human eye a masterpiece. As to why humans suffer, the Bible explains that this was not God's purpose for mankind, and he has been taking steps over many centuries to end such suffering for all future time. (Romans 8:20,21)
Much of the suffering today is man-made, either through ignorance, greed, malice or a combination thereof.

Diseases are God made.

Fix it 'in the future'? that means he failed to fix it.

 

[Krok]

Well if the Guardian said it...! I mean the Guardian is a well known scholarly source of scientific information. :sarcastic

And New Scientist may be a "science journal" but only in that they write op-ed pieces about science. They are as scholarly and peer reviewed as someone's blog.

Hard to believe (because they are always wrong) but, The Guardian is a more reliable source of information than any of those creationist "publications" (CMI, AIG, Watchtower, etc.)!

 

[Krok]

I can understand your anger over the human condition.

Oh, I've got no anger. I lead a very satisfying, prosperous life. I just don't understand why a omni-everything creator, who pretends to be good, would turn so many children blind. Obviously, you can't either. It angers me when you try to tell me that a "good god" made those worms and that I have to worship that monster.

I would certainly call the human eye a masterpiece..

Me too. The human eye certainly is a masterpiece. Scientifically, the human eye can be explained.

However, my eyes are not masterpieces when I do scuba diving. Those squids see way better than me in those conditions! I see better on land that they do. They see better in the water than I do.

As to why humans suffer, the Bible explains that this was not God's purpose for mankind, and he has been taking steps over many centuries to end such suffering for all future time. (Romans 8:20,21)..

If a god "wanted" or has or had a "purpose" for anything, he or she could do it with waving a little magic wand. He or she could just wave those parasites, blinding children, away. Your "explanation" makes no sense at all.

Much of the suffering today is man-made, either through ignorance, greed, malice or a combination thereof.

Are you trying to tell me that those parasites turning children blind were man-made? They're not. they are in the water.

Did you read your Bible? It says that your "good god" made everything.

Are you telling untruths by denying that your god made those parasites? Because, according to your religion, that same god made everyting. Even the devil. Everything. I'll repeat, everything. What did those children do wrong to deserve those worms getting into their eyes?

 

[rusra02]

Diseases are God made.

Fix it 'in the future'? that means he failed to fix it.

Actually, diseases are the result of man's evildoing. When Adam rebelled against his Creator and Lifegiver, he brought sin into the world with it's deadly consequences. (Romans 5:12)

No, God never fails at anything he purposes to do. He has set a time to end the misrule of earth by wicked men. (Matthew 24:36) God sent his Son to provide a ransom from sin, and Jesus demonstrated his ability to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and even raise the dead. (Matthew 20:28,Acts 10:38) This demonstration of God's power is evidence of his love and his purpose to end suffering earthwide.
God's patience has allowed time to settle the controversy over who is the rightful sovereign, and given men time to come to know God.

 

[Krok]

I think you miss the point. The public is bombarded with new discoveries "proving" evolution.

Yeah, I know. You can never prove a theory. Look at the cell theory, it can never be proved. Every bit of evidence we obtain, confirms it. When they removed my appendix, the cell theory was "proved".

The media was blitzed with news of Ida, including a book and TV documentary, according to AP.

Ida is a great transitional fossil. Why not? They should report on it. I think it did not get enough coverage.

Then, when the facts come to light, the PUBLIC are not bombarded with these facts.

Ida certainly is a great transitional fossil. It's a pity not more people know about it.

More like, "Evolution is true, Evolution is true, oh, by the way, Ida isn't the proof of evolution we claimed it was, Evolution is true...."

It is true with or without Ida. That 's been established 160 years ago. Only crazy people question that fact.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Actually, diseases are the result of man's evildoing. When Adam rebelled against his Creator and Lifegiver, he brought sin into the world with it's deadly consequences. (Romans 5:12)

No, God never fails at anything he purposes to do. He has set a time to end the misrule of earth by wicked men. (Matthew 24:36) God sent his Son to provide a ransom from sin, and Jesus demonstrated his ability to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and even raise the dead. (Matthew 20:28,Acts 10:38) This demonstration of God's power is evidence of his love and his purpose to end suffering earthwide.
God's patience has allowed time to settle the controversy over who is the rightful sovereign, and given men time to come to know God.

lol, right, because eating an apple allowed US the magic power to spontaneously create diseases.


Except not really. God is to blame. No way around it.

 

[camanintx]

And yet there''s all that pesky intelligence and engineering acumen everywhere we look in heaven and earth. After describing many of God's creations, Psalm 104 declares: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions." (verse 24) The evidence for Intelligent design is in the productions of God. A human producing a masterpiece is generally praised for doing so. Jehovah has filled the earth with his materpieces, but is not given the credit.

Your argument suffers from a severe case of anthropomorphism. You could learn something from puddles.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you miss the point. The public is bombarded with new discoveries "proving" evolution. The media was blitzed with news of Ida, including a book and TV documentary, according to AP. Then, when the facts come to light, the PUBLIC are not bombarded with these facts. More like, "Evolution is true, Evolution is true, oh, by the way, Ida isn't the proof of evolution we claimed it was, Evolution is true...."

So? "Journalists made 'Ida' out to be something other than what she was" does not equal "evolution is false".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus..." Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes

WOW....Your quote-mining skills are remarkable. It's one thing to take a quote someone else quote-mined and present it here but when you create your own and give references to its source it shows a high level of dishonesty. Did you even read what the paragraph said? You snipped out a piece of the quote which gives the impression it agrees with you but even that source, you cite, completely disagrees with your assertion.......

 

[painted wolf]

So? "Journalists made 'Ida' out to be something other than what she was" does not equal "evolution is false".

Exactly... unless the fact that there are many thousands more faked religious icons means that "religion is false".

But, the argument is generally... "if I can show one thing wrong with your argument, no matter how trivial, then you loose and your whole position is rendered false... if you show one thing wrong with my argument it doesn't matter because God is mysterious and no true Scotsman."

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

So? "Journalists made 'Ida' out to be something other than what she was" does not equal "evolution is false".

It means what I said it means. That the media, academia, and the ToE elite are all too ready to feed the public ToE propaganda that later turns out to be erroneous or fraudulent. When revealed, there's hardly a mention of the mistakes made by the errant media, or of the facts that support any idea other than evolution.

 

[camanintx]

It means what I said it means. That the media, academia, and the ToE elite are all too ready to feed the public ToE propaganda that later turns out to be erroneous or fraudulent. When revealed, there's hardly a mention of the mistakes made by the errant media, or of the facts that support any idea other than evolution.

So why hasn't anyone found any of those triassic birds mentioned in Genesis 1:20-23?

 

[painted wolf]

It means what I said it means. That the media, academia, and the ToE elite are all too ready to feed the public ToE propaganda that later turns out to be erroneous or fraudulent. When revealed, there's hardly a mention of the mistakes made by the errant media, or of the facts that support any idea other than evolution.

Actually there was a lot written about the problems with calling Ida a "missing link" but most of the mainstream media pretty much ignored it because it wasn't as good a story.

Here are some examples (I didn't include individual scientists blogs):
Why Ida fossil is not the missing link - opinion - 21 May 2009 - New Scientist
Bone Crunching Debunks ‘First Monkey’ Ida Fossil Hype | Wired Science | Wired.com
'Ida' Fossil Hype Went Too Far | LiveScience
Ida: Humankind's Earliest Ancestor! (Not Really) - TIME

But saying that the media ignored it is patently false. The science bloggosphere was even more busy with debate and discussion on Ida.

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the media, academia, and the ToE elite are all too ready to feed the public ToE propaganda that later turns out to be erroneous or fraudulent.

Those filthy scum.

Take that! :slap:

And that! :slap:​

 

[Draka]

I just love half-brained conspiracy theories. Where's Ventura? Shouldn't he be here somewhere?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It means what I said it means. That the media, academia, and the ToE elite are all too ready to feed the public ToE propaganda that later turns out to be erroneous or fraudulent. When revealed, there's hardly a mention of the mistakes made by the errant media, or of the facts that support any idea other than evolution.

That's due in large part to the fact that none of these quibbles over small details about individual fossils have any potential to undermine evolutionary theory. Its status as a solid, well-founded theory well-supported by evidence is not in jeopardy.

In fact, if some new scientific study did disprove evolution, I'm sure that the news agencies would be climbing over each other to get the scoop on that story. The reason they don't do this is because it hasn't happened.

But you haven't said anything to change my assessment of the underlying message of your argument: "science journalism sometimes sucks, therefore evolution is false." This is ridiculous.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just love half-brained conspiracy theories. Where's Ventura? Shouldn't he be here somewhere?

Probably not; he's far to much of a living, breathing, repudiation of intelligent design.