Proof of Creation?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Cool strawman story. One of the best yet, I would say.

Well, perhaps we can stop the argument by platitudes and actually consider the evidence. Mere pronouncements such as "You have nothing but resemblances!" or "Designs never happen without a designer!" are not really valid arguments. One needs to consider the actual evidence.

For example, you and I share a coccyx, which is clearly a vestige of a true tail in a former species. Some humans even have a muscle attached to it exactly where, in species with tails, the muscle exists to lift the tail. Some humans lack that muscle. Those humans who have that muscle cannot use it to do anything.

Hmmm. Is there a designer explanation? Nope. Is there an evolutionary explanation? Yep.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, perhaps we can stop the argument by platitudes and actually consider the evidence. Mere pronouncements such as "You have nothing but resemblances!" or "Designs never happen without a designer!" are not really valid arguments. One needs to consider the actual evidence.

For example, you and I share a coccyx, which is clearly a vestige of a true tail in a former species. Some humans even have a muscle attached to it exactly where, in species with tails, the muscle exists to lift the tail. Some humans lack that muscle. Those humans who have that muscle cannot use it to do anything.

Hmmm. Is there a designer explanation? Nope. Is there an evolutionary explanation? Yep.

So, because God "tailed" off (sorry, couldn't help myself) the spinal column with a triagular bone at the end, which we call the "tail bone", it automatically becomes a remnant of a tail?

I guess God should have just ended the spine with an abrupt sqared off vertibae. Maybe he should have talked to you guys first.

 

[crjmurray]

So, because God "tailed" off (sorry, couldn't help myself) the spinal column with a triagular bone at the end, which we call the "tail bone", it automatically becomes a remnant of a tail?

I guess God should have just ended the spine with an abrupt sqared off vertibae. Maybe he should have talked to you guys first.

Your God could have made humans look unique instead of being physically similar to apes.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Your God could have made humans look unique instead of being physically similar to apes.

Kim Bassinger looks like an ape to you? You're nuts!!

 

[crjmurray]

Kim Bassinger looks like an ape to you? You're nuts!!

Not my type but I get your point.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So, because God "tailed" off (sorry, couldn't help myself) the spinal column with a triagular bone at the end, which we call the "tail bone", it automatically becomes a remnant of a tail?

I guess God should have just ended the spine with an abrupt sqared off vertibae. Maybe he should have talked to you guys first.

Its clear evidence of a previous ancestral species with a tail. Furthermore, the very hairs on your arm have, each of them, a muscle to fluff your fur. Oops . . . it isn't fur any more, its to thin for that trick to work. Oh well, just another vestigial reminder of a previous species . . ..

 

[EternalDragon]

Your God could have made humans look unique instead of being physically similar to apes.

What would that be exactly?

God often used natural forces to create and do things. He also uses body
plans that work well. Like using Adam's rib to create Eve. It is sort of
his MO.

 

[Kylie]

Kim Bassinger looks like an ape to you? You're nuts!!

Humans are members of the ape family, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Kylie]

What would that be exactly?

God often used natural forces to create and do things. He also uses body
plans that work well. Like using Adam's rib to create Eve. It is sort of
his MO.

If Eve came from Adam's rib, she must have been a clone. After all, there was only Adam's DNA to work with. So why wasn't Eve another male?

And even discounting that, they'd certainly be more closely related than any brother and sister would be...

 

[crjmurray]

What would that be exactly?

God often used natural forces to create and do things. He also uses body
plans that work well. Like using Adam's rib to create Eve. It is sort of
his MO.

Your God has made it look like we share a common ancestor with modern primates. We don't see evidence that we share ancestry with a common rib from 6000 years ago.

 

[EternalDragon]

Your God has made it look like we share a common ancestor with modern primates. We don't see evidence that we share ancestry with a common rib from 6000 years ago.

No, scientists have shown you that and you (I assume) believe them.

If you would care to look at differing views I can give you several
links that have a much different opinion. From other real scientists.

 

[Kylie]

No, scientists have shown you that and you (I assume) believe them.

If you would care to look at differing views I can give you several
links that have a much different opinion. From other real scientists.

If they are from biologists, I would be happy to see them. If they are from scientists whose studies do not depend on a knowledge of biology, then I'm not interested.

 

[crjmurray]

No, scientists have shown you that and you (I assume) believe them.

If you would care to look at differing views I can give you several
links that have a much different opinion. From other real scientists.

I have looked at different views thank you. I don't want to challenge your religion so if you don't want to answer I understand. But the evidence does back a naturalistic explanation. I don't understand why your God would make all of his work look natural. Unless your God is deceptive.

 

[EternalDragon]

I have looked at different views thank you. I don't want to challenge your religion so if you don't want to answer I understand. But the evidence does back a naturalistic explanation. I don't understand why your God would make all of his work look natural. Unless your God is deceptive.

My God is very clear from his word that he created everything.

I don't believe the evidence backs a naturalistic explanation. One
interpretation of the evidence backs a naturalistic explanation and
it has many problems other explanations do not have.

 

[Kylie]

My God is very clear from his word that he created everything.

Correction, you have been given a book and lead to an interpretation of it that causes you to conclude that your God was very clear. The fact that many people have read this same book and reached totally different conclusions to you indicates that it isn't really very clear at all.

I don't believe the evidence backs a naturalistic explanation. One
interpretation of the evidence backs a naturalistic explanation and
it has many problems other explanations do not have.

What qualifications have you go that allow you to reach such a conclusion?

 

[EternalDragon]

My God is very clear from his word that he created everything.

Correction, you have been given a book and lead to an interpretation of it that causes you to conclude that your God was very clear. The fact that many people have read this same book and reached totally different conclusions to you indicates that it isn't really very clear at all.

What qualifications have you go that allow you to reach such a conclusion?

What qualifications do I need to reach conclusions? An above average IQ?

 

[humbleServant77]

Correction, you have been given a book and lead to an interpretation of it

No Kylie, knowing God and being given a book are two entirely different things. And while there are no doubt some sheeple that are content to be lead to an interpretation of it, those who know God generally do not function the way you are imagining.

 

[Kylie]

What qualifications do I need to reach conclusions? An above average IQ?

So that's "none" then. No study of the subject?

Perhaps your IQ is higher than the people who do this for their living, who spend decades of their lives researching this and understanding in great detail everything that happens, and you have more intelligence than them?

Somehow I don't think so.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

My God is very clear from his word that he created everything.

I respect that position.

What qualifications do I need to reach conclusions?

A sound mind and a calm disposition, plus a healthy body and the ability to be able to read and think a thing through carefully before replying.

I also think a study in Bible Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology, Biblical Criticism and Biblical Languages (and if you're really into it, a study of the Targums), plus perhaps some Archaeology, History, Philosophy, Geography and Geology -- might help to shift 'em gears faster. -- all of which I posses in extremely minute quantities and still manage to get to second base.

 

[JacksBratt]

I respect that position.



A sound mind and a calm disposition, plus a healthy body and the ability to be able to read and think a thing through carefully before replying.

I also think a study in Bible Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology, Biblical Criticism and Biblical Languages (and if you're really into it, a study of the Targums), plus perhaps some Archaeology, History, Philosophy, Geography and Geology -- might help to shift 'em gears faster. -- all of which I posses in extremely minute quantities and still manage to get to second base.

Are you saying that, unless we have expertise in these fields, we should just go with what ever evolutionist scientists are feeding us?

Or, should we be able to make our own conclusions based on what we read from all sources available to us?

I think that the first part of your post is ample to be able to come to a conclusion.

(A sound mind and a calm disposition, plus a healthy body and the ability to be able to read and think a thing through carefully.)


I see some posters here discredit any source that is a creationist site, as biased and dismiss the bible all due to the fact that it contradicts their view.

Do I not have the same right to dismiss any evolutionist scientists babble due to the fact that it is biased as well? Or is this luxury only available to people who follow the evolutionist mantra, based on the shear masses of people duped by this drivel.