Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Astrid]

Ravens and Doves are dinosaurs.

Nope. In genes, in anatomy, in the fossil record. No point in denying the facts.


Evolutionary theory says no such thing. Birds existed by the late Jurassic. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the last dinosaurs, living to the KT event in the Cretaceous.


Without any evidence... well, you know.

No evidence but there's ignorance and
imagination to make up for it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Aside from the shallow, dishonest nature of
such claims you noted, there's that it's all personal opinions.

No two creationists on this forum agree on their
claims.

I think I understand what you are arguing, but I can only partially agree.

First, lets be clear - I hope you are talking about young earth creationists. Since Old Earth Creationists, or Theistic Evolutionists, or whatever the correct term is, simply see evolution as the means by which God developed his creation, then from a scientific standpoint there is no differnce between their views and my (our?) views.

Secondly, I think only a small proportion of creationists, whether those posting here, or in the global body of creationists are dishonest. That is, I think the majority believe what they say and post. Is their thinking often haphazard, illogical, self-contradictory, their arguments confused and often poorly understood by themselves? Yes, certainly, but dishonest? Not usually.

Thirdly, while many YECs on this forum have their own peculiar take on the matter, I don't think the same ratios apply in the world at large. Rather the dominating behaviour is to latch on to tired old arguments that have long been debunked. That's what I find most frustrating about reading their posts - lack of novelty.

 

[AV1611VET]

No two creationists on this forum agree on their claims.

Variety is the spice of life.

 

[The Barbarian]

Secondly, I think only a small proportion of creationists, whether those posting here, or in the global body of creationists are dishonest. That is, I think the majority believe what they say and post. Is their thinking often haphazard, illogical, self-contradictory, their arguments confused and often poorly understood by themselves? Yes, certainly, but dishonest? Not usually.

Today's winner.

 

[The Barbarian]

Variety is the spice of life.

When there's no compelling evidence for one viewpoint, expect lots of different viewpoints. This is why scientists tend to agree on most things in science, while creationists differ widely on creationism.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why am I defending ostriches having wings but can't fly to schooled intellects?

Because schooled intellects want to blame God on making mistakes, when in reality, those "wings" serve a different purpose altogether.

It's not a mistake. As you learned, wings first evolved for other purposes than flight. God is a lot smarter than you seem willing to have Him be.

Not to mention having to explain -- (of all things) -- why people don't have tails.

We do have tails. They are just vestigial. That's what a coccyx is. We have them because apes have them and we evolved from other apes. Some of us do dialogue with creationists. As noted above, most are not intentionally dishonest. But they do have a lot of demonstrably false ideas.

Darwin, for example pointed out how few transitional forms were known in the fossil record of his time. He attributed this to them not being discovered and possibly not having fossilized at all in many cases. His attribution has proven to be correct. Here's a list of transitional forms and series now known, from according to a young Earth Creationist:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Many of these transitionals have been discovered in my lifetime. Important new fossils turn up almost monthly.

 

[Astrid]

I think I understand what you are arguing, but I can only partially agree.

First, lets be clear - I hope you are talking about young earth creationists. Since Old Earth Creationists, or Theistic Evolutionists, or whatever the correct term is, simply see evolution as the means by which God developed his creation, then from a scientific standpoint there is no differnce between their views and my (our?) views.

Secondly, I think only a small proportion of creationists, whether those posting here, or in the global body of creationists are dishonest. That is, I think the majority believe what they say and post. Is their thinking often haphazard, illogical, self-contradictory, their arguments confused and often poorly understood by themselves? Yes, certainly, but dishonest? Not usually.

Thirdly, while many YECs on this forum have their own peculiar take on the matter, I don't think the same ratios apply in the world at large. Rather the dominating behaviour is to latch on to tired old arguments that have long been debunked. That's what I find most frustrating about reading their posts - lack of novelty.

Yes, I should specify yec.

I could be a theist. it's not dishonest or unreasonable to
believe in God.


Again, I should specify that it's the specious
arguments that are dishonest. Or, said differently,
it's impossible to be an informed and intellectually honest yec.

Our maid is from a rice farm in Philippines. Catholic.

Smart girl but little formal education. Thought
the earth is flat, all bible stories literal.

No dishonesty there!

It's been fun, opening her eyes. Im taking her to
the US next trip, just for her.

Eagerness to learn is so cool. How could I not ?

Frustrating...same moldy claims from yecs.
But, they are at a disadvantage.
None of the ones here show signs of more than
high school education, and, worst for them they've
no facts on their side.
More frudtrating is near absolute refusal to learn AYTHING
about science! Not even that science does not do proof!

Finally...all Chridtisns are creationists in that, well, God created. And they may be right.

My apologies to any non yec who may think meant
to include them.

 

[AV1611VET]

When there's no compelling evidence for one viewpoint, expect lots of different viewpoints. This is why scientists tend to agree on most things in science, while creationists differ widely on creationism.

Scientists HAVE to agree.

Creations SHOULD agree, but God realizes there's going to be problems in that area.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

And when Christ returns, He is going to set the records straight.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a mistake.

That is correct.

But some believe it is.

As you learned, wings first evolved for other purposes than flight.

Yes, I did learn that.

I don't believe it, but I learned it.

God is a lot smarter than you seem willing to have Him be.

God is omniscient.

I am not.

We do have tails.

I disagree.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not a mistake.

That is correct.

But some believe it is.

Creationists do. But scientists have long known that wings first evolved for other purposes than flight.
God is a lot smarter than you seem willing to have Him be.

God is omniscient.

I am not.

Then why not just accept it His way?

We do have tails. They are just vestigial.

I disagree.

Doesn't matter:

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not dishonest or unreasonable to believe in God.

That's an understatement.

It's impossible to be an informed and intellectually honest yec.

I disagree.

Tough question:

Can a person be informed and intellectually honest as to what is taught on paper; yet still disagree?

If I take a science exam, should I fail it on purpose by writing down what I believe, as compared to writing down what I've been taught?

My apologies to any non yec who may think I meant to include them.

Apology accepted.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientists HAVE to agree.

Nope. In fact, there are still some things on which there is not general agreement in science. You were badly misled about that. In evolutionary theory, for example, there are still some disagreements on pacing of evolution in different situations. Science is always growing, and at the frontier, there are disagreements.

Creations SHOULD agree

Should, but since they depend on human revisions of scripture, there's really no way to come to a general agreement, even on very fundamental things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists do.

That is correct.

Some creationists believe ostriches have rudders, not wings.

But scientists have long known that wings first evolved for other purposes than flight.

Just like they long knew (76 years) that Pluto was our ninth planet.

You can know something for years, then that something turns out to be wrong.

God is a lot smarter than you seem willing to have Him be.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Then why not just accept it His way?

Good idea.

We do have tails.

No, we don't.

They are just vestigial.

They are part of a bone structure that should have been folded over and joined to the lower spine, but weren't.

Is this a "vestigial hangman's noose"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Should, but since they depend on human revisions of scripture, there's really no way to come to a general agreement, even on very fundamental things.

That's because we have a sworn enemy, bent on using divide-and-conquer tactics to keep the family of God at odds with each other.

 

[dlamberth]

First, lets be clear - I hope you are talking about young earth creationists. Since Old Earth Creationists, or Theistic Evolutionists, or whatever the correct term is, simply see evolution as the means by which God developed his creation, then from a scientific standpoint there is no differnce between their views and my (our?) views.

That would be me your speaking of.

 

[dlamberth]

Can a person be informed and intellectually honest as to what is taught on paper; yet still disagree?

If I take a science exam, should I fail it on purpose by writing down what I believe, as compared to writing down what I've been taught?

Where I come down on this question is that if a person is well informed on what God's own Creation is showing us, yet still relies on the creation stories of an ancient nomadic middle-eastern tribe for their understandings, that is in my opinion being intellectually dis-honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where I come down on this question is that if a person is well informed on what God's own Creation is showing us, yet still relies on the creation stories of an ancient nomadic middle-eastern tribe for their understandings, that is in my opinion being intellectually dis-honest.

My associate pastor points out that every nation that had its own god, recognized the God of these "ancient nomadic middle-eastern tribes" as the God of the universe.

EGYPT

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

BABYLON

Daniel 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:
19 And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.
20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:
21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;

CANAAN

Joshua 2:11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

PHILISTINES

1 Samuel 4:5 And when the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again.
6 And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they said, What meaneth the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews? And they understood that the ark of the LORD was come into the camp.
7 And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore.
8 Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.
9 Be strong, and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you: quit yourselves like men, and fight.

 

[dlamberth]

My associate pastor points out that every nation that had its own god, recognized the God of these "ancient nomadic middle-eastern tribes" as the God of the universe.

It's not about the God of the Universe image...it's about their ancient creation stories that have no bearing on what God's Creation as created by God's own hand is actually showing us. That's where the intellectual dis-honesty comes into play from my perspective.

 

[Astrid]

Where I come down on this question is that if a person is well informed on what God's own Creation is showing us, yet still relies on the creation stories of an ancient nomadic middle-eastern tribe for their understandings, that is in my opinion being intellectually dis-honest.

Creation stories- great raven, whatever-
are stories. Spoken or written.
True or not, impossibleto go forth and verify.
( but can be disproven)

It's "revealed" knowledge.
No data involved, no study, no effort.
Not like those foolish satanic scentists
who actually do go forth to see what nature
is and does.

What the bible literalists do is like
buying a trophy and thinking it makes them
terrif and a better athlete than those olympians
who have to train!

YECS claim their chosen reading is correct,
though every single speck of relevant info
shows them wrong.

There are cynical exploiteers who fool
the gullible.
And there arrd rhere's those into self decemotion,
are not honest with themselves.

Only the ignorant are innocent.

Meanwhile the yecs are being so disrespectful on so many levels.of whatever god there may be.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Where I come down on this question is that if a person is well informed on what God's own Creation is showing us, yet still relies on the creation stories of an ancient nomadic middle-eastern tribe for their understandings, that is in my opinion being intellectually dis-honest.

There's no scientific evidence of a creator period. There's a distinct barrier between science and any creator. Therefore what would make your belief any more honest than another?