A Question for Creationists

[USincognito]

You know, it is like it is impossible for someone to realize they were very wrong about something.

Admitting you were wrong about something you believed strongly in, is a sign of strength and psychological health.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[USincognito]

Some do, some don't.

Here is one of many that say they don't and he is an evolutionists: The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accompishing a major change of morpholigic transition...(STephen M. Stanly, Microevolution: Pattern and Process, p. 39.

You need to stop spamming dishonest Creationist quote mines.

Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes

{Even evolutionists doubt fossil record shows transformation of one organism into another}

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. - Steven M. Stanley (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979 p. 39)"

Representative quote miners: Missouri Association for Creation: What Do the Fossils Say?, Institute for Creation Research: The Vanishing Case for Evolution, and Bible Believers: The Case for Evolution Has NOT Been Proved!

The quote comes from the start of Chapter 3 (see Point 5):

"Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuated model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletic evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow between subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such miniscule [sp] mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are unlikely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

The quoted text is part of a list that Stanley believes supports "quantum speciation". And what is "quantum speciation"?

"For the present, we can define quantum speciation simply as speciation in which most evolution is concentrated within an initial interval of time that is very brief with respect to the total longevity of the new lineage that is produced. Implicit in this concept is the idea that during the rapid, early phase of evolution, the seminal population has not yet expanded from its small, initial population size." [bold in original] [pg. 26]

And since, as we see on page 39, Stanley writes that "quantum speciation is a real phenomenon", there should be no doubt that he believes that evolution has occurred. However, he doesn't believe that evolution happens by changing an ancestral species into descendant species, but rather by descendants branching off from ancestors, as we can see on page 211:

"Major trends in evolution are the result, not of phyletic transition, but of divergent speciation. Most are phylogenetic trends: net changes produced by multiple speciation events."

He comes to this conclusion by examining the fossil record. But the mined quote would have the reader believe that the fossil record doesn't support evolution, where as Stanley believes that it does.​

 

[Theodor1]

I know the Bible is correct because it is the word of God.

The Bible is correct because Science tells us the Bible is correct. For hundreds of years Science has been showing us that the Bible is true, accurate and correct. There is nothing in the Bible that Science can falsify. There is no circular reasoning at all, just pure unadulterated Scientific Evidence. To be sure Science censors a lot of that evidence. As you seem to be trying to do right now. Your "circular reasoning" argument is little more then a diversionary tatic.

 

[biggles53]

The Bible is correct because Science tells us the Bible is correct. For hundreds of years Science has been showing us that the Bible is true, accurate and correct.

Please give some examples.

There is nothing in the Bible that Science can falsify.

Except that we don't get coloured goats by waving striped sticks in front of mating pairs....

Oh, and the earth isn't flat....

Oh, and the earth orbits the sun, not vice versa...

Oh, and disease is caused by microorganisms, not demons...

Oh, and mental disorders are caused by brain malfunction, not evil spirits....

Oh, and insects all have 6 legs...

Oh, and bats are mammals, not birds....

Oh, and..........................................gettin' the drift...?

There is no circular reasoning at all, just pure unadulterated Scientific Evidence. To be sure Science censors a lot of that evidence. As you seem to be trying to do right now. Your "circular reasoning" argument is little more then a diversionary tatic (sic).

Do yourself a favour.....read up on some basic logic...

 

[lasthero]

To be sure Science censors a lot of that evidence.

Such as?

 

[Theodor1]

Except that we don't get coloured goats by waving striped sticks in front of mating pairs....

All your doing is showing us that you do not understand the Bible and you do not understand the lesson that God has for you in the Bible. You need the Holy Spirit of God to guide and lead you into the truth.

 

[Theodor1]

Such as?

This is an ancient Sumerian Seal that clearly shows that the ancient people knew the planets circled the sun. This is the kind of information that is commonly censored.

 

[USincognito]

This is an ancient Sumerian Seal that clearly shows that the ancient people knew the planets circled the sun. This is the kind of information that is commonly censored.

If you're going to lift that image from Ed Babinski's pages, you should include the whole article where he makes a very convincing case that seal impression is not showing Sumerian cosmology.
Edward T. Babinski - Cosmology: Did the ancient Sumerians know about our "solar system?"

Your comment about censorship is pricelessly ironic in light of this fact.

 

[lasthero]

This is an ancient Sumerian Seal that clearly shows that the ancient people knew the planets circled the sun. This is the kind of information that is commonly censored.

Are you aware that the very page you ripped this picture from actually makes a numerous arguments against what you're claiming?

But even if that's true, what has science done to 'censor' these facts? They seem quite readily available.

 

[biggles53]

All your doing is showing us that you do not understand the Bible and you do not understand the lesson that God has for you in the Bible. You need the Holy Spirit of God to guide and lead you into the truth.

By all means....educate us...!

What lesson does Jacob teach us with his weird version of animal husbandry...?

 

[Theodor1]

Are you aware

That was the point was to show an example of censorship, or at least attempted censorship.

 

[lasthero]

That was the point was to show an example of censorship, or at least attempted censorship.

I don't think you quite understand what censorship is.

In what way is he censoring the picture? He presented it, unedited, then listed several reasons why he feels it's not a depiction of Sumerian cosmology. You're free to agree or disagree with him and draw your own conclusions, and he's done nothing to stifle that. He's in no way 'censored' this picture.

 

[USincognito]

That was the point was to show an example of censorship, or at least attempted censorship.

No it wasn't. Your point was to show that information about how the Sumerians knew about the solar system and that said information was being censored. In order to make it, you found an image of a seal imprint and only used that image despite the fact that the page you got it from was a many paragraphs long debunking of the very claim you were making. And you censored that content in order to "make your point".

Some of us were born at night, but we weren't born last night.

 

[OllieFranz]

By all means....educate us...!

What lesson does Jacob teach us with his weird version of animal husbandry...?

[cheeky]Hostile takeovers (Esau's birthright for a pot of lentils), theft by deception (Isaac's blessing), and underhanded business practices (Laban's flocks) are the path to godly success?[/cheeky]

 

[Theodor1]

said information was being censored.

Do you think that there is a problem coming up with examples of censorship?

 

[AV1611VET]

By all means....educate us...!

Sure -- qv please:

Deer hunter explains Jacob's 'rods'.

I wanted to post this as a new thread before it gets lost in the thread where I originally posted it. I hope you find it interesting.

The spotted and ringstraked offspring were the offspring of rams that carried and passed on that characteristic. The peeled rods had nothing to do with their coloration and there is nothing in the story that indicates this.

The exposed white of the poplar rods may have been a visual breeding stimulus for the does much like it is for some species of deer. Deer, sheep, and goats are distantly related. The more visual rubs (saplings with bark peeled almost all the way around) of the whitetail deer are called 'signpost rubs' and indicated the presence of breeding bucks to the females in the area.

It is well known that while the presence of breeding males doesn't always cause the females to come into heat it serves to 'organize' the breeding cycle for maximum effectiveness. In the case of goats their odiferous presence actually does bring the females into heat. So Jacob's peeled rods may have indicated to the female sheep and goats that the watering areas were the place to breed, not the cause. The introduction of strong-smelling breeding males would have brought them into heat. Jacob did this to ensure maximum breeding effectiveness so he could quickly build his own flocks. The story further reveals that the rams that were used that may have appeared one-colored actually carried the multi-colored qualities that Jacob sought.

Poplar 'rods' peeled by deer to help organize the breeding cycle.

Male deer and male goats have some similiar breeding behaviors, notably that of urinating on themselves to attract females. The goat pees in his beard while the deer urinates on his hind legs as an enhancement to the musky secretions from his 'tarsal' glands located on the inside of his hocks.

The 'rubs' or peeling of the bark from saplings during the deer breeding season might have been shown to Jacob by his brother Esau, who hunted deer in the area (his father Isaac loved the 'venison' he brought home from the field). Jacob may have used the technique in hopes of enhancing the breeding cycle of the sheep and goats without actually knowing if it would work. My guess is that he was using every trick in the book to become successful.

Another thought. The reason Jacob placed several peeled rods in front of the cattle instead of just one may lie in another habit of male deer regarding these rubs. They will often rub many saplings in a small area of the woods. These are called 'cluster rubs' and probably indicate a 'loafing area' frequented by the buck, but not necessarily a 'breeding' area.

Esau may also have revealed this to Jacob, who may have thought,"Hey, if one peeled poplar is good, two (or two dozen) is twice as good."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Firstly, I have no idea what your history is and I don't see it as particularly relevant because I'm not addressing the issue on a personal level;

Yes you are. You just questioned the authenticity of what I've told you about myself. Your own incredulity notwithstanding, how is that not personal?

The issue at hand is this; a person who claims they were once a Christian and had a personal relationship with God now proclaims that there is no God and invests his time on a Christian forum trying to convince other Christians not to believe. This is the position with which we take issue.

A person cannot go from knowing God to knowing He doesn't exist. Either he never knew God or for whatever reason he is lying to himself and others about God's existence. There simply is no other option. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you knew Him or you didn't. From what you are saying you THOUGHT you knew Him. That means you never knew Him.

This is relevant because your claim is NOT unique. I've already encountered at least a dozen "former Christians." Many of them were simply outright lying because they thought it strengthened their argument to have been "taken in" by religion until they "saw the light" of atheism. This is why we ask questions. Given two contradictory views we seek clarification. People lie on the internet. Moreover, they lie to themselves. As Christians, we are here to support other Christians and to spread the truth of salvation to others. For this reason we address positions such as yours to help determine if someone simply needs support because their faith is waning of if they are merely another poser with the express purpose of harassing believers.

What I see here is a Christian desperate to differentiate himself from those who were once Christian. There is no contradiction in what I've said. I was once a Christian. I am no longer a Christian, or a theist for that matter. It really is as simple as that. Your objection is, in effect, "You didn't really know God. You merely believed that you knew God." That would apply to you. You claim to know God, as do many other people who adhere to religions other than yours. Conviction is not the same as knowledge. You seem to confuse the two and criticise me for not having had enough blind faith to quell doubt.

Things you believe may change, but truths you know endure. We know that God is real and we support those people who need reassurance. We are also ever vigilant for the wolves in sheep's clothing who come here to devour the weak in faith. Only you know what category you're in personally. I sincerely hope that if you ever had faith that you would again find it again. If you've never believed God's answers, then perhaps you've been asking the wrong questions.

That is what led me to ask the question in the OP. Things you believe may change also. Why don't you want to know what is really happening?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would agree completely. Once you know, you know. There is no doubt that can come any longer. Doubt without knowledge is probable, knowledge casts out all doubt. It is a given.

That simply isn't true. I once "knew" in the same sense that you now claim to "know".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What rubbish.......how surprising...

Religious beliefs are formed in the mind. I have yet to meet a believer who stated that they have had the experience of a god 'in the flesh' - all revelations that have been reported have been in the form of a 'spiritual experience', that they have felt the 'presence' of their god or 'holy spirit'.

So, what can be formed in the mind can also suffer the vagaries of the mind.......we now understand much more about how the mind can be fooled into confusing reality with illusion...

In short, then there is indeed another 'option'.....A person may have believed that they were once in communion with a god, but then come to the realisation, through reasoned thinking, that such was probably not the case. It does not mean that they were any less fervent in that belief than you might be, while they held it......!

Thank you. Someone who understands.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Each person creates their own reality that they use to understand the world.
Understanding God's plan has far more value than secular knowledge offers.

The best that secular can offer is great wealth with the rest of the
population loathing your guts. And that only lasts a number of years
if you're lucky.

Why do you think that is the best secular knowledge can offer? Is there any other kind of knowledge apart from what you've termed "secular knowledge"?