Observation on Scientism Evolution

[Shemjaza]

Because a silly attraction to fleece the faithful from their money. The attraction is unchanging, and will be dead within a few short years once everyone has been there once, IMO.

To be fair, it was built to fleece the unfaithful as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Whether they do or whether they don't I don't know.

It's pretty easy to find out, though.
Just read their mission statement. They are not out to uncover to truth about the biological world. Instead, they merely seek to validate their a priori beliefs.

An honest/reasonable person asks the universe the find out things about the universe, through experiment and testing.

A dishonest/unreasonable person, pretends to have the answers before asking the question.

One thing I do know is if evidence for evoulition was ever found.

You're 200 years behind, it seems.

Then there would be no shortage of people wanting to debate Ken Ham etc.

I think Ken Ham can consider himself lucky that there are überhaupt any people at all that are currently willing to give him the appearance of credibility by allowing him to share a stage with them.

While it's certainly fun to watch, it is a bit ridiculous. It is the equivalent of a geographer "debating" a flat-earther. Or an astronomer "debating" a geocentrist. Or an embryologist "debating" a stork theorist.

 

[Job 33:6]

Part One- Observation on Scientism Evolution

When I was going to junior college I ended up taking an Anthropology class. Though I'm a Christian, I went in with an open mind. We started out by discussing how evolution is a theory, what a theory is, and how to get one. We discussed human and non-human primates, which had me come out with more questions than I did answers. We talked about culture and anatomy in the primate as well as the prehistoric world. We may have also talked about the big bang and carbon dating. I had questions and some of the answers only came to me by assumption from the instructor which she would kindly tell me that these are only educated guesses, but she currently couldn't show me any solid proof. So, as I continued to take this class I really started to think about the lack of proof; the missing links, and archeological excavations. I started to think about the proof that they are seeking through these excavations that may be damaged, destroyed, didn't get the chance to fossilize, or never existed at all. We also as a class got to observe primate and early human skulls. As I was observing them I saw that most of them had mask bone replacements, so most if not all of them were broken, pieced together, and some had become possibly inaccurate specimens, because of how much bone was actually missing, and how much masking was done to them. It could have been done by scientist's bias and guess. From the specimens that may have been more well preserved, I may have seen how primates evolved and how humans evolved, but I didn't see where humans came from primates. What I saw is that their evolution was separate. There may have been adaption and breeding of the same species, but not one species becoming another species. They also presented to us a photograph of a specimen that looked like it had a body more like a human, but the head of any ape. For all I know, they could have constructed that specimen themselves or the possibility of it being a bipedal ape species that had gone extinct. We also discussed the genome between humans and Bonobos being 1.3% of a difference. While what we also discussed in this class was varients in human DNA, that if even the base of a DNA strand had the slightest difference is a major difference. So, in seeing this much of a difference in our chromosomes it makes oceans of a difference to the point that we are not the same species. As for the big bang and carbon dating, we were not there, so we don't have a base of when everything was created and time began. It got me questioning how carbon dating or any method of dating would work under these circumstances. There are also many different dating methods including carbon dating methods that all come up with different results. So, there is no accurate way of dating specimens. At the end of my own observations throughout this class, I looked at the picture of an orangutan skeleton and that of a human's pretending that I had never heard of Scientism Evolution, and I saw two completely different specimen. So, my conclusion on this was that you have to have faith to believe in evolution from a Scientism standpoint and that evolution may exist, but not in the way it is being taught or expressed by it's believers that treat it like it's a religion.

Part Two- Varient in News Article

It recently came to my attention that a news article in "The Guardian" talked about an underwater excavation find of an Ancient Greek city that was dated back way before the time of Troy, and before the timing of mankind according to Scientism evolution. This quickly changed; however, where they said that all of these ruins were not made by people as thought previously, but by bacteria. Which this new claim didn't make any sense as I looked at thier findings of a stairway and a handcrafted table or column base. Was this the work of historians, scientists, and politicians trying to cover this up, because it was an infraction on their evolutionary timeline? So, when it comes to the world of science, history, and politics it has me wondering what is real? Though no dating can be accurate it's the action that they took on this find that truly sparked my interest.

Part Three- America's rise to communism?

I have heard how past rulers have used atheism to influence people to question or let go of their beliefs in the way that they teach evolution. They push their agendas towards communism to make their rule easier to follow by wiping away the influence of God or any diety. This isn't necessarily saying that the people will bow down and worship their new leader though the leader may like, but to have no god at all will still make their reign much easier for them to rule and rid of anyone who doesn't follow. I remember when I was sitting in a class in middle school when we had our first day of basic anthropology and origin of creation. She asked us how everything was made. When I raised my hand and replied "God, Jesus", she told me "no" to both answers. I was shocked and outraged by her answer. That year in school after we took this class that stated that everything came from the big bang theory and evolutionary theory there were almost no Christians left. I see that our science classes are having an influence on our country when it comes to them teaching this more like religion, rather than it being a science, a theory. When in high school, I looked back on my years in school and noticed that the pledge of a alligence was said daily in my elementary years and only said once my entire senior year in high school. I thought that our country separated Church and state by not teaching religion in school, but classrooms are being taught Scientism evolution like it is a religion or at least their believers are treating it like one even to the point of ridiculing others who do not believe in it as fact, but chose to have faith in a more Creationism viewpoint instead. None of this makes sense to me since we have been fighting Communism and dictatoriships this whole time. I'm guessing after time going by and us separating from England the government is seeing that the time is right for the sake of power, control, and greed. Please Pray for us all, if this all be true.

Scopes Trial
Scopes Trial - Wikipedia

Ancient Greece Variant Article
Underwater 'ruins' off Greek island created by bacteria millions of years ago

Darwinism Use In Communism
The Darwinian Foundation of Communism

NOTE: This link above is not meant to discriminate any people in anyway, it's for the use of example only. This thread isn't meant to slam anyones beliefs, but to share my observation on Scientism Evolution and what I might see happening to the United States.

Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia

brain capacity the quarter size of a modern day human. Little to no snout in comparison to modern day great apes like gorillas and chimpanzees. large brow ridge (ape like), small canines unlike modern day apes, C shaped palate (human like).

Closer to humans than other great apes, yet clearly not human, unless you believe in humans with a quarter sized brain capacity and a small snout. Also, the dates of sahelanthropus align with genetic predictions of human-chimp split in time.

As for radioactive dating, varying radioactive dating methods have been used to date samples of the K-T boundary from multiple places around the globe. Results correlate. Independently collected, independently analyzed etc.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is being moved to the subforum - Creation & Evolution as it is a better fit for the topic.

 

[Heartofsilver]

This wall of text only demonstrates that you don't really understand modern scientific methods.

If you wish to discuss any particular point you mentioned please choose one though.



Ahh, a huge worldwide evolutionist conspiracy? Very poor.

Why is an ancient city an "infraction" of the evolutionary timeline anyway? Surely you aren't accepting the dating of these "ruins" after your previous rant against the accuracy of radiometric-dating?



Don't you understand the difference between science and religion? Or biology and politics?

I was adding the carbon or radiometric dating to my observation, but I was making more of an emphasis on the historian's, scientist's, and politician's reactions to the discovery anyway; in trying to claim that the ruins are made by something that they may not be. So, they can say that it wasn't made by humans to the ones who do believe in carbon or radiometric dating. Making it so, it doesn't threaten any scientific belief, method, or theories that they have previously made. Hopefully, this isn't to upkeep some kind of agenda that the government may have to wipe us clean of other beliefs or freedom, so that they may have a communist state.

 

[Heartofsilver]

Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia

brain capacity the quarter size of a modern day human. Little to no snout in comparison to modern day great apes like gorillas and chimpanzees. large brow ridge (ape like), small canines unlike modern day apes, C shaped palate (human like).

Closer to humans than other great apes, yet clearly not human, unless you believe in humans with a quarter sized brain capacity and a small snout. Also, the dates of sahelanthropus align with genetic predictions of human-chimp split in time.

As for radioactive dating, varying radioactive dating methods have been used to date samples of the K-T boundary from multiple places around the globe. Results correlate. Independently collected, independently analyzed etc.

Thank you for a sound answer.
The first picture is a cast and not the actual specimen. Also as I scrolled to look for another example, I did see the facial reconstruction that could also be based off of bias and it's also reconstructed with a distorted skull. I used to study forensic science and saw a part about modern facial reconstruction. The work that they did to a woman's skull was not accurate even though her skull was perfectly in tact. The work that they did almost didn't look like her.

"The teeth, brow ridges, and facial structure differ markedly from those found in Homo sapiens. Cranial features show a flatter face, u-shaped dental arcade, small canines, an anterior foramen magnum, and heavy brow ridges. No postcranial remains have been recovered. The only known skull suffered a large amount of distortion during the time of fossilisation and discovery, as the cranium is dorsoventrally flattened, and the right side is depressed.[1]"

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you for a sound answer.
The first picture is a mask and not the actual specimen. Also as I scrolled to look for another example, I did see the facial reconstruction that could also be based off of bias and it's also reconstructed with a distorted skull. I used to study forensic science and saw a part about modern facial reconstruction. The work that they did to a woman's skull was not accurate even though her skull was perfectly in tact. The work that they did almost didn't look like her.

"The teeth, brow ridges, and facial structure differ markedly from those found in Homo sapiens. Cranial features show a flatter face, u-shaped dental arcade, small canines, an anterior foramen magnum, and heavy brow ridges. No postcranial remains have been recovered. The only known skull suffered a large amount of distortion during the time of fossilisation and discovery, as the cranium is dorsoventrally flattened, and the right side is depressed.[1]"

It isnt a mask, its a fossil.

If your best response is "oh theyre all just making stuff up", you arent going to get anywhere.

Any response for the correlating results of independent radioactive dating tests?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isnt a mask, its a fossil.

If your best response is "oh theyre all just making stuff up", you arent going to get anywhere.

Any response for the correlating results of independent radioactive dating tests?

Actually it is a cast of the original fossil. As you can see it is in countless pieces and appears to be very fragile. This is a rather standard practice with fragile fossils and rare originals. Copies are made, very very precise copies and those are studied and more important displayed. As one knows from countless comedies one would not want a rare fossil out where an accident might befall it.

It is still a valid way to use the fossil for evidence.

 

[Heartofsilver]

Actually it is a cast of the original fossil. As you can see it is in countless pieces and appears to be very fragile. This is a rather standard practice with fragile fossils and rare originals. Copies are made, very very precise copies and those are studied and more important displayed. As one knows from countless comedies one would not want a rare fossil out where an accident might befall it.

It is still a valid way to use the fossil for evidence.

That is what I meant, a cast and not a mask. Thank you for correcting me. As for them piecing it together and making copies there could be inaccuracies in making these casts. Any copy can not be exactly like it's original. Also, if they have to replace any number or size of pieces by casting, it is up to the scientists educated guess on what those pieces may be like. Also, it looks like this specimen and/or specimen's cast was distorted to begin with. I believe in evolution to a degree, but when it comes to ape becoming man, I'm a skeptic since there is only blurred proof that it is so. There is no definite answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what I meant, a cast and not a mask. Thank you for correcting me. As for them piecing it together and making copies there could be inaccuracies in making these casts. Any copy can not be exactly like it's original. Also, if they have to replace any number or size of pieces by casting, it is up to the scientists educated guess on what those pieces may be like. Also, it looks like this specimen and/or specimen's cast was distorted to begin with. I believe in evolution to a degree, but when it comes to ape becoming man, I'm a skeptic since there is only blurred proof that it is so. There is no definite answer.

Then you simply do not understand the evidence. The fossil evidence alone is very compelling. The evidence found in DNA is irrefutable. Not just our amazing similarity to chimpanzees in our DNA and the expected increasing difference in ever less related species, but in ERV's too. Creationists simply cannot deal with ERV's.

 

[Gene2memE]

I believe in evolution to a degree, but when it comes to ape becoming man, I'm a skeptic since there is only blurred proof that it is so. There is no definite answer.

You're not a skeptic, you're making excuses to accommodate your religious views.

There are, at last count, the remains of around ~12,000 individual pre-neolithic hominid human ancestors. No more than about 6,000 of these have been studied in significant detail. Some of these remains are no more than a couple of teeth, some of them are almost complete skeletons.

Here is an entire encyclopedia - Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution - Wiley Online Library - dedicated to just hominid ancestors between 1 and 7 million years in age. It contains more than 5,000 separate entries for individual sets of remains.

That's not blurred proof, that's an embarrassment of riches.

I'm not pretending that there aren't unanswered questions about human evolution, nor that its not a complicated and difficult topic, nor that there aren't holes in the fossil record (the chimpanzee fossil record springs immediately to mind). However, there's a big difference between saying that we don't know everything, and arguing there's only "blurred proof".

 

[Jimmy D]

I was adding the carbon or radiometric dating to my observation, but I was making more of an emphasis on the historian's, scientist's, and politician's reactions to the discovery anyway; in trying to claim that the ruins are made by something that they may not be. So, they can say that it wasn't made by humans to the ones who do believe in carbon or radiometric dating. Making it so, it doesn't threaten any scientific belief, method, or theories that they have previously made. Hopefully, this isn't to upkeep some kind of agenda that the government may have to wipe us clean of other beliefs or freedom, so that they may have a communist state.

This doesn't explain why you think evidence of an ancient city would be an "infraction" of the evolutionary timeline. You seem to think that people are making up scientific data to serve a sinister agenda, have you ever studied in any detail any of the science you allude to?

 

[bhsmte]

Serious academics won't debate evolution/creation for the simplr reason there is no clear evidence for evolution.
They won't debate because they cannot show it is true.

Why the dismissive attitude over the ark encounter?
Can you show where they are wrong, where the bible says it didn't happen?

Major league LOL

 

[Heartofsilver]

This doesn't explain why you think evidence of an ancient city would be an "infraction" of the evolutionary timeline. You seem to think that people are making up scientific data to serve a sinister agenda, have you ever studied in any detail any of the science you allude to?

Oh, it was said that the ruins discovered dated back before the human kind we know of today exsisted. They then suddenly changed it around saying that the ruins where not ruins at all, but formations made by bacteria, not ruins made by human hands. The people suddenly changing this after discovering that it was built before the time of man that we know of today according to them seems suspicious.

 

[Heartofsilver]

I ♥ that statement.

"these are only educated guesses, but she currently couldn't show me any solid proof."
"had become possibly inaccurate"
"It could have been done by scientist's bias and guess."
"For all I know, they could have constructed that specimen themselves"
"we were not there"
"there is no accurate way of dating specimens."

With respect, I question how open your mind is when your conclusions are that scientists are deceptive and/or ignorant.

It seems that though some may believe in evolution to a degree, that if we don't believe in it exactly as Scientism states it that we are deemed as "closed minded." I'll be Praying for you.

 

[Heartofsilver]

Then you simply do not understand the evidence. The fossil evidence alone is very compelling. The evidence found in DNA is irrefutable. Not just our amazing similarity to chimpanzees in our DNA and the expected increasing difference in ever less related species, but in ERV's too. Creationists simply cannot deal with ERV's.

We don't share the same beliefs on this, but I shall look up ERV's since I don't think we discussed those in class. Thank you and I'll be Praying for you.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It seems that though some may believe in evolution to a degree, that if we don't believe in it exactly as Scientism states it that we are deemed as "closed minded." I'll be Praying for you.

My comment was not about your beliefs, but about your process. You claimed to be open-minded, but you made up excuses for how scientists were probably lying or in error, as a method of avoiding the evidence as opposed to evaluating it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Hopefully, this isn't to upkeep some kind of agenda that the government may have to wipe us clean of other beliefs or freedom, so that they may have a communist state.

Oh dear, the American right seems to see communists around every corner. I do believe there are more communists in America than there ever were in Soviet Russia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't share the same beliefs on this, but I shall look up ERV's since I don't think we discussed those in class. Thank you and I'll be Praying for you.

You have beliefs, I have knowledge.

What class are you talking about? And please try to use valid sources.

 

[Job 33:6]

We don't share the same beliefs on this, but I shall look up ERV's since I don't think we discussed those in class. Thank you and I'll be Praying for you.

You never responded about the correlating results for radioactive dating of the K-T boundary...