God's beautiful creation

[Shemjaza]

Add www to the beginning or replace the '+' with a '.' here www+thegrandexperiment.com

The site seems primarily involved in the selling of his data, not the detailed presentation of it.

I'm a little concerned with how he edited the responses of scientists like Dr. Hans Thewissen to take what might be the honest description of the always tenuous scientific method as an admission of guilt or lack of knowledge.

I'd be very curious about the comments about human evolution, because I'm more familiar with the evidence, and the accusations seem much more extreme in the advertisements.


I'm very curious what his actual response is to the existence of near complete hominid skeletal parts that indicate that they are not a modern ape and not a modern man?

What about all the genetic evidence for the recent populations like Neanderthals and Denisova?

 

[Shemjaza]

You obviously didn't watch the vid or read the article. Your choice. I'm not going to go on endlessly debating baseless conclusions and distortions. The evidence is there for the sincere seeker.

Btw... for all concerned. Here's one snippet revealing the power of a dedicated few - even amongst skeptics - over the populace at large. Why the faithful consider even a small band of powerful evolutionary religionists a threat - not only intellectually but spiritually - to the well-being of the unsuspecting public. Then and now...

"Osborn had no trouble inserting his theories of human evolution and his interpretation of the Piltdown remains into newspapers, museum exhibitions, and textbooks."

And it spread across the ocean thusly.

Resist folks! Otherwise...

Romans 1:21 ESV

"For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

God bless us all.

biblegateway.com

I wasn't saying people didn't believe it was real, especially laymen and the era's equivalent of pop sci journalists... what In was saying is that it didn't make sense when considered as a part of the rest of the evidence collected.

When people discover a fossil, especially what they think is a primate they what it to be important, special and new... especially if it upsets the status quo in favour of some bias or preference.

Two examples that got over eager media attention were:
Gigantopithecus blacki, an interesting and important find in that it's the largest primate ever discovered, but it's not a hominid, it's more like a giant orangutan.
And of course Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, AV1611Vet's beloved mislabeled pig, who was labelled a hominid probably as an honest mistake. (Yet again it was scientists who pointed out the error).

These are interesting fossils, but the media can sell more books with "APE MAN" than with "weird pig", all without fraud... and all corrected with real science.


The point about the scientific uselessness of Piltdown Man is that if the entire evolution of humanity was fraud and mistakes, why would they even be able to point out the issues? Why would they try?

Why don't creationists who claim to scientifically disprove evolution publish in scientific papers? Why can't they even get the support of Intelligent Design affiliated scientists to help them?

 

[Joseph G]

I wasn't saying people didn't believe it was real, especially laymen and the era's equivalent of pop sci journalists... what In was saying is that it didn't make sense when considered as a part of the rest of the evidence collected.

When people discover a fossil, especially what they think is a primate they what it to be important, special and new... especially if it upsets the status quo in favour of some bias or preference.

Two examples that got over eager media attention were:
Gigantopithecus blacki, an interesting and important find in that it's the largest primate ever discovered, but it's not a hominid, it's more like a giant orangutan.
And of course Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, AV1611Vet's beloved mislabeled pig, who was labelled a hominid probably as an honest mistake. (Yet again it was scientists who pointed out the error).

These are interesting fossils, but the media can sell more books with "APE MAN" than with "weird pig", all without fraud... and all corrected with real science.


The point about the scientific uselessness of Piltdown Man is that if the entire evolution of humanity was fraud and mistakes, why would they even be able to point out the issues? Why would they try?

Why don't creationists who claim to scientifically disprove evolution publish in scientific papers? Why can't they even get the support of Intelligent Design affiliated scientists to help them?

You already know the answer.

Considering the hostility to Creationists on this forum (as a microcosm of society at large), you think Creationist scientists can slip their papers by peer reviewers out there? LOL! When Creationists do, they go ballistic. Of course, they can publish their science based on their faith with impunity, however.

The controlling "scientific community" at large is just as fearful of the open exchange of ideas as those who try with all their might to regulate what does and doesn't "belong" on this forum - particularly in regards to identifying just Who the Creator is.

The real question is - what do they fear?

So yes, Creationists publish their own scientific evidences largely independently. Burning their papers - along with their Bibles - hasn't quite reached America yet - like other countries - but not for lack of ambition!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You already know the answer.

Considering the hostility to Creationists on this forum (as a microcosm of society at large), you think Creationist scientists can slip their papers by peer reviewers out there? LOL! When Creationists do, they go ballistic. Of course, they can publish their science based on their faith with impunity, however.

The controlling "scientific community" at large is just as fearful of the open exchange of ideas as those who try with all their might to regulate what does and doesn't "belong" on this forum - particularly in regards to identifying just Who the Creator is.

The real question is - what do they fear?

So yes, Creationists publish their own scientific evidences largely independently. Burning their papers - along with their Bibles - hasn't quite reached America yet - like other countries - but not for lack of ambition!

There's no fear involved in anything against Creationism. People are against it because it's bad science and bad Christianity. So much of the work of Creationists is done by people who lie, or forced to lie, about science and facts to fit a preconceived notion about the Bible which came about in the 60's, for no other reason than a minority group of Christians in America do not like the fact that their singular interpretation of the Bible is given no credence by others.

 

[Joseph G]

There's no fear involved in anything against Creationism.

A sure sign of fear is that it suppresses, or attempts to do so.

People are against it because it's bad science and bad Christianity.

Not particularly concerned in how you define either.

So much of the work of Creationists is done by people who lie, or forced to lie, about science and facts to fit a preconceived notion about the Bible which came about in the 60's, for no other reason than a minority group of Christians in America do not like the fact that their singular interpretation of the Bible is given no credence by others.

I'll take a pass on all this, as usual...

God bless!

 

[Shemjaza]

You already know the answer.

Considering the hostility to Creationists on this forum (as a microcosm of society at large), you think Creationist scientists can slip their papers by peer reviewers out there? LOL! When Creationists do, they go ballistic. Of course, they can publish their science based on their faith with impunity, however.

The controlling "scientific community" at large is just as fearful of the open exchange of ideas as those who try with all their might to regulate what does and doesn't "belong" on this forum - particularly in regards to identifying just Who the Creator is.

The real question is - what do they fear?

So yes, Creationists publish their own scientific evidences largely independently. Burning their papers - along with their Bibles - hasn't quite reached America yet - like other countries - but not for lack of ambition!

Simply false.


If Creationists have viable and verifiable evidence... why can't they even convince Intelligent Design and other varieties of Creationist organisation to agree with them?

What about Christian organisations like BioLogos full of people who have dedicated their lives to science and education with a Christian persepctive?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A sure sign of fear is that it suppresses, or attempts to do so.

But it's not suppressed. Derided and mocked, sure, but suppressed? Hardly.

Not particularly concerned in how you define either.

It's true though.

I'll take a pass on all this, as usual...

Noted. Doesn't mean anything I said was wrong though.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You already know the answer.

Considering the hostility to Creationists on this forum (as a microcosm of society at large), you think Creationist scientists can slip their papers by peer reviewers out there? LOL! When Creationists do, they go ballistic. Of course, they can publish their science based on their faith with impunity, however.

If creationists (or "creation scientists") did actual science it would be published, but they don't.

The controlling "scientific community" at large is just as fearful of the open exchange of ideas as those who try with all their might to regulate what does and doesn't "belong" on this forum - particularly in regards to identifying just Who the Creator is.

A classic conspiracy claim from those who do not actually understand how the scientific community works and would rather claim persecution. The sources that are feeding this conspiracy nonsense to you are not doing you any favors.

The real question is - what do they fear?

There is nothing to "fear" from creationist "science" since it demonstrates nothing or isn't even scientific.

So yes, Creationists publish their own scientific evidences largely independently. Burning their papers - along with their Bibles - hasn't quite reached America yet - like other countries - but not for lack of ambition!

I can smell your paranoia.

 

[AV1611VET]

If creationists (or "creation scientists") did actual science it would be published, but they don't.

Do you realize what you're saying?

Encouraging creation scientists to do actual science is like encouraging a swimmer to jump into a swimming pool that doesn't have any water.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm not saying "creation scientists" can't do science; I'm saying they can't do science where there is no science to do.

You can't play a piano on a flute.

 

[Joseph G]

If creationists (or "creation scientists") did actual science it would be published, but they don't.

A classic conspiracy claim from those who do not actually understand how the scientific community works and would rather claim persecution. The sources that are feeding this conspiracy nonsense to you are not doing you any favors.

There is nothing to "fear" from creationist "science" since it demonstrates nothing or isn't even scientific.

Pass again. Not buying into your limited worldview.

I can smell your paranoia.

Research North Korea, China, India, most of the Middle East and especially Nigeria, for a few examples. Burning down churches, illegalizing gatherings, destroying villages and towns, and banning Bibles is only the beginning.

Considering that God has so accurately foretold thousands of years of human events in His Holy Bible, I have no doubt in the accuracy of the full extent of the persecution of the Church that is and is to come. It will be worldwide.

Don't mistake warning an unbelieving world for personal fear, though. Those sealed by His Holy Spirit have nothing to fear - and we know it! Nor those yet to come to Him. We fear not those who can only kill the body.

Matthew 24:20-22

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you realize what you're saying?

Encouraging creation scientists to do actual science is like encouraging a swimmer to jump into a swimming pool that doesn't have any water.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm not saying "creation scientists" can't do science; I'm saying they can't do science where there is no science to do.

You can't play a piano on a flute.

The problem is when someone posts blogs and videos titled: "How I played this piano on my flute!"


Claiming the history of the world is the result of historically recent miracles is not able to be disproven on its own... but when you add a claim of scientific evidence for it, then we can respond.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is when someone posts blogs and videos titled: "How I played this piano on my flute!"

Point taken.

And I wish they'd stop that.

Claiming the history of the world is the result of historically recent miracles is not able to be disproven on its own... but when you add a claim of scientific evidence for it, then we can respond.

Fair enough.

But trying to override a creation scientist's science with your own brand of science -- when discussing a series of events where science doesn't apply -- is equally wrong.

 

[Joseph G]

Simply false.

Okey doke. I wouldn't agree demonstrably so.

If Creationists have viable and verifiable evidence... why can't they even convince Intelligent Design and other varieties of Creationist organisation to agree with them?

Because like evolutionists, there are unfortunately a thousand differerent definitions - all with their own subtle or overt motivations, of what constitutes "Creationists", "Intelligent Design" proponents, and certainly "Christians" for that matter.

What about Christian organisations like BioLogos full of people who have dedicated their lives to science and education with a Christian persepctive?

I gotta tell ya, it took some digging to get to the nutcut of this organization. Talk about a bevy of contradictions...

They claim to vaunt a Creator (which one would think is perfectly capable of creating supernaturally), but devote most of their space to the elevation of "natural processes". Which is fine, except that genuine believers don't stop at seeing God as "setting everything in motion" at a point in time and sitting back, but still being intimately involved through the natural and supernatural.

They claim to adhere to the Apostle's Creed in one place, with its nod to Scripture as being divinely inspired, but decry any notion of "inerrancy" (their quotation marks) elsewhere. Which leaves no wonder as to why they poo poo 6 days creation, tout an old earth as "evidenced" in sedimentary layers and the fossil record, and hold up "christians" who lauded "Origin Of Species" as proud demonstrations of their "inclusiveness" of thought.

I also didn't find anywhere (and please advise if I'm missing it), was their precise position on the exact origin of man according to their "Evolutionary Creationism" - ape, salamander, fruit fly, amoeba, speck of space dust? Only one vague reference to "common ancestry". Certainly no endorsement towards two fully formed humans.

So... do I believe this organization is a shining example of proponents of "religion" and "science" living in harmony? No.

For all the reasons given, but for this above all. I couldn't find anywhere any mention of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - the bare minimum of what defines a genuine believer. Again, correct me if I'm wrong - I just became weary of trying to find it.

To believe and profess that one has a relationship with Jesus, one has to believe what He says - that He promises as much. To believe Him is to believe He is, in fact, the Word Himself. Therefore it is required to believe that yes, from cover to cover, the Holy Bible is inspired, inerrant, and perfectly capable of being correctly interpretated and obeyed through the inspiration of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the genuine believer - as also precisely promised.

All this, too, missing from their website.

So all things considered, though certainly the organization may be populated by a segment of genuine believers, the organization as a whole is not representative of the genuine Christian faith. At best, if they are, they are seriously compromised in trying to drag the Bible to be subordinant to a secular worldview.

Which is why, to answer your question, not all Creationists (Christian in particular) will align themselves with every other Creationist organization - nor with their interpretations of the scientific evidence.

 

[BCP1928]

Okey doke. I wouldn't agree demonstrably so.

Because like evolutionists, there are unfortunately a thousand differerent definitions - all with their own subtle or overt motivations, of what constitutes "Creationists", "Intelligent Design" proponents, and certainly "Christians" for that matter.

I gotta tell ya, it took some digging to get to the nutcut of this organization. Talk about a bevy of contradictions...

They claim to vaunt a Creator (which one would think is perfectly capable of creating supernaturally), but devote most of their space to the elevation of "natural processes". Which is fine, except that genuine believers don't stop at seeing God as "setting everything in motion" at a point in time and sitting back, but still being intimately involved through the natural and supernatural.

That may be the position of Biologos, but it is most certainly not that of most Traditional Christians, who have no trouble seeing divine causality continuously present, even as natural processes are at work as science describes them.

They claim to adhere to the Apostle's Creed in one place, with its nod to Scripture as being divinely inspired,

What, exactly, is that nod? I don't see anything in the Apostle's Creed regarding the divine inspiration of scripture.

but decry any notion of "inerrancy" (their quotation marks) elsewhere. Which leaves no wonder as to why they poo poo 6 days creation, tout an old earth as "evidenced" in sedimentary layers and the fossil record, and hold up "christians" who lauded "Origin Of Species" as proud demonstrations of their "inclusiveness" of thought.

Most Christians don't employ the biblical creationist hermenuetic, so the question of "inerrancy" doesn't arise for them in the same way it does for you.

I also didn't find anywhere (and please advise if I'm missing it), was their precise position on the exact origin of man according to their "Evolutionary Creationism" - ape, salamander, fruit fly, amoeba, speck of space dust? Only one vague reference to "common ancestry". Certainly no endorsement towards two fully formed humans.

So... do I believe this organization is a shining example of proponents of "religion" and "science" living in harmony? No.

For all the reasons given, but for this above all. I couldn't find anywhere any mention of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - the bare minimum of what defines a genuine believer. Again, correct me if I'm wrong - I just became weary of trying to find it.

It's just a question of vocabulary. "Personal relationship with Jesus" is a phrasing pretty much limited to Evangelicals'

To believe and profess that one has a relationship with Jesus, one has to believe what He says - that He promises as much. To believe Him is to believe He is, in fact, the Word Himself. Therefore it is required to believe that yes, from cover to cover, the Holy Bible is inspired, inerrant, and perfectly capable of being correctly interpretated and obeyed through the inspiration of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the genuine believer - as also precisely promised.

All this, too, missing from their website.

So all things considered, though certainly the organization may be populated by a segment of genuine believers, the organization as a whole is not representative of the genuine Christian faith. At best, if they are, they are seriously compromised in trying to drag the Bible to be subordinant to a secular worldview.

They mean well, and are not trying to subordinate the Bible--just rescue it from biblical creationist theology. They are, however, apparently mostly Protestant, so they are hampered by the onerous burden of Sola Scriptura.

Which is why, to answer your question, not all Creationists (Christian in particular) will align themselves with every other Creationist organization - nor with their interpretations of the scientific evidence.

 

[roman2819]

Actually I've been a professional biologist for around 10 years now.

In view that you are a professional biologist, we would like to hear a few things about evolution:

1. What is evolution according to the view, and what are the main points? Although i heard it before, but let's hear from you, assuming you represent their definition correctly.
I know evolution doesn't say there is no God, but it implies so. Do you think evolution implies no God? How then do you define evolution, or explain the main points?

2. According to evolution, can one kind of living lifeform change to another over a long time, for example can an amphibian gradually change into a reptile? If yes, why are there no fossils of in-between species? I believe the same kind can evolve within themselves for example: there are many different breeds of horses ) but they cannot cross over ( eg: a crocodile does not become a komodo). Don't say such statements show my ignorance, but its a genuine question because I have heard evolution say so many things, so perhaps you can clarify.

I will appreciate if you can focus on the first 2 questions above.

3. As to why I believe Dr Werner instead of the community of evolution biologists, the reason is simple: He got his feet wet exploring fossils for 30 years, so he should know what he is talking about. It is said that when you understand something very well, you can express it in very simple terms. That’s what he could do, he asked the right questions and find answers to dissect evolution, eg: If lifeforms change as evolution claims, then fossils from eons of time ago should be different from today's skeletons, so he examined fossils found near dinosaurs' bones but these fossils do not show change from the same skeletons of species today, even after so many millenniums have passed when dinosaurs used to live on earth.

 

[roman2819]

Living fossils does not contradict evolution at all. In fact,

Wener didn't say fossils contradict evolution, as you claimed.

Instead He said that fossils found a long time along do not look different from the skeletal remain of he same lifeforms - and that poses a challenge to evolution.

You mention a handful of animals that don't change even after a long time ie Sharks, snakes, turtles, tortoises, coelocanth. So thats 5 out of estimated 200,000 species of animals . So where is the fossils to show that other animals change, eg pigs, pigeons, tigers, donkeys, monkeys. and another 100,000 others?

 

[roman2819]

If Creationists have viable and verifiable evidence... why can't they even convince Intelligent Design and other varieties of Creationist organisation to agree with them?

Good that you took time to watch the video, even though you still have concern.

What do creationists need to prove when the evidence is right before our eyes? They say God created the lifeforms and hundred of thousands of different lifeforms including land animals, marine creatures, birds, vegetation etc etc etc .... the estimate range from 300,000 to 500,000 different varieties. How can all these varieties turn out so wholesome and beautiful -- and plus the ecology system consisting of oxygen, water, COs, nitrogen and all other elements. These are evidence and proof right before our eyes., but people want to believe in something else, that it all happen by themselves without a creator. If so, how did it even begin? With a few cells that start changing so sloooowly on a pile of soil or rocks ....? Where's the proof? Can they so gradually transform themselves into hundreds of thousands of wholesome lifeforms? We are not talking about 200 lifeforms, but something like 200,000 or even double that.

Some people ask if God made all these, then who made God? Does everything has to be made? Why can't God just exist? Why not, why must He be made according to our mental limitation? And there are some evidence about geography and science in the Bible that are true, which sceptics don't want to acknowledge.

 

[roman2819]

If creationists (or "creation scientists") did actual science it would be published, but they don't.

What do creationists need to prove when the evidence is right before our eyes? They say God created the ecology and lifeforms. There are about countless different lifeforms including land animals, marine creatures, birds, vegetation etc etc etc (estimate ranges from 300,000 to 500,000 different varieties). How can all these varieties turn out so wholesome and beautiful -- plus the ecology system consisting of oxygen, water, COs, nitrogen and all other elements to sustain life. These are evidence and proof right before our eyes, but people want to believe in something else, that if all happen by themselves without a creator. If so, how did it even begin? with a few cells that start changing so slooowly on a pile of soil or rocks ....? And everything turn out so well? Where's their proof?

Some people ask if God made all these, then who made God? But does everything has to be made? Why can't God just exist? Why must He be made according to our mental limitation? And there is evidence in the Bible about geography and science which is true, which sceptics don't want to acknowledge.

 

[Joseph G]

That may be the position of Biologos, but it is most certainly not that of most Traditional Christians, who have no trouble seeing divine causality continuously present, even as natural processes are at work as science describes them.

"Most"? According to whom?

"Natural processes at work as science defines them?" As in macro-evolution? Humans from amoebas, or whatever? I think not. No such compromise observed in the 36 year history of believers I have fellowshipped with - and countless teachers/preachers/subject matter experts I have learned from in person online - nor in my study of history prior - going back to Genesis.

True believers have always been a remnant. The majority around them have always worshipped the creation rather than the Creator - including the pseudo-religionists.

As Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun."

When was the Father or the Son ever daunted by majority public opinion, then or now?

What, exactly, is that nod? I don't see anything in the Apostle's Creed regarding the divine inspiration of scripture.

Right you are... my bad. Exactly why I don't confine myself to any creed or tradition of man.

They stated it elsewhere in their "What we believe" blurb, thusly:

1. The Bible is inspired by God, a true revelation of God to humankind, and authoritative for Christian faith and practice.

But not "authoritative" enough to be inerrant. Kinda strange, that the God Who spoke the universe into existence should be so ineffectual so as to be powerless to convey exactly what He means to say.

Most Christians don't employ the biblical creationist hermenuetic, so the question of "inerrancy" doesn't arise for them in the same way it does for you.

Sure. Because to them, interpretation is subject to some kind of scholarly discipline (hermenuetics) rather than acknowledgement and reliance upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You know, as if He actually exists and does precisely what Jesus says He does when salvation is received.

It's just a question of vocabulary. "Personal relationship with Jesus" is a phrasing pretty much limited to Evangelicals'

Pretty revealing there, BCP.

They mean well, and are not trying to subordinate the Bible--just rescue it from biblical creationist theology.

LOL! If calling God a liar is meaning well, then shut mah mouth, Loretta!

Genesis 33:1 NIV

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ..."

And his spirit has been inspiring doubt and deceiving ever since...

 

[BCP1928]

"Most"? According to whom?

There are over two billion Christians in the world. Most of them are Traditional Christians (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Maronites. Greek, Russian, Ethopian & Armenian Orthodox, Copts, Chaldeans, Syriacs, Thomas Christians). I doubt if you could muster more than about 100 million YECs, most of them in the US.

"Natural processes at work as science defines them?" As in macro-evolution? Humans from amoebas, or whatever? I think not. No such compromise observed in the 36 year history of believers I have fellowshipped with - and countless teachers/preachers/subject matter experts I have learned from in person online - nor in my study of history prior - going back to Genesis.

True believers have always been a remnant. The majority around them have always worshipped the creation rather than the Creator - including the pseudo-religionists.

As Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun."

When was the Father or the Son ever daunted by majority public opinion, then or now?

Still, you might give it some thought. The doctrines you are relying on for your interpretation, are all of relatively recent origin, post the Refomation and Sola Scriptura and found only amongst Evangelical Protestants. Maybe you're right, who knows? But I'd like to see you try that on with, say, the Coptic Patriarch. I would like to see his reaction when you tell him that he and his church have been calling the Bible a lie for 2000 years.

Right you are... my bad. Exactly why I don't confine myself to any creed or tradition of man.

They stated it elsewhere in their "What we believe" blurb, thusly:

1. The Bible is inspired by God, a true revelation of God to humankind, and authoritative for Christian faith and practice.

That statement reflects the belief of all Christians, not just you and those you fellowship with.

But not "authoritative" enough to be inerrant. Kinda strange, that the God Who spoke the universe into existence should be so ineffectual so as to be powerless to convey exactly what He means to say.

The whole concept of "inerrant" is a standard you impose on scripture. Your "error" is nothing more than a deviation from your chosen interpretation, your notion of "what God meant to say."

Sure. Because to them, interpretation is subject to some kind of scholarly discipline (hermenuetics) rather than acknowledgement and reliance upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You know, as if He actually exists and does precisely what Jesus says He does when salvation is received.

Pretty revealing there, BCP.


LOL! If calling God a liar is meaning well, then shut mah mouth, Loretta!

Again, they are not calling God a liar, you are accusing them of it because they don't agree with your interpretion. But you don't own the Christian religion or the Bible, and you are in no position to dictate to other Christians what that are supposed to believe about it.

Genesis 33:1 NIV

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ..."

And his spirit has been inspiring doubt and deceiving ever since...

The question is, who is being deceived?