Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[pitabread]

No offense but I kind of feel like this line of questioning is similar to asking why is the sky blue. And if the sky were green then people might ask why is the sky green. And if the sky were purple people might ask why is the sky purple. So you see no matter what color the sky was people would still ask why it is that color. I think this line of questioning is similar to that and if God had made man’s dna different than what it is we would still be asking these questions regardless of how He constructed it.

The difference though re your sky analogy is that no one is basing their religious beliefs on the color of the sky.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I remember reading this in my initial search before replying to a reply post and found it interesting. Apparently, the missing link is no longer a thing since the underlying theory is no longer considered valid - the most interesting idea I thought was that evolution is not linear.
Missing link (human evolution) - Wikipedia

More as food for thought, I scrolled down and read the responses and did not see anything related to this line of reasoning.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are numerous transitional fossils from early hominids to modern humans. The transitional fossils have such a fine blend of characteristics that creationists can't even agree on which are human or not.

The evidence for human evolution is quite well documented.

I wouldn’t call a hand full of bones numerous. All they have are a few unconfirmed theories based on assumptions.

 

[Speedwell]

I remember reading this in my initial search before replying to a reply post and found it interesting. Apparently, the missing link is no longer a thing since the underlying theory is no longer considered valid - the most interesting idea I thought was that evolution is not linear.
Missing link (human evolution) - Wikipedia

More as food for thought, I scrolled down and read the responses and did not see anything related to this line of reasoning.

Good article, thanks. We've been trying to explain that very concept to creationists here for years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Big Bang theory does not explain much about the early universe. A lot of ideas get thrown around, but no one really knows how it all began. It is a mystery and will remain a mystery.

How about you explain what causes gravity, try an easier problem.

What leads you to that conclusion? Man tends to solve problems.

 

[Hammster]

No, it was a personal attack. I could play the same game but I am working at a handicap as an atheist. I would not be forgiven for such an attack and would be subject to moderation. It was an abuse of the Bible.

It would only be abuse if I took it out of context and applied it incorrectly. However, as a Christian who wants to see all people saved, we must first show the bad news in order for the Good News to have any meaning.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The difference though re your sky analogy is that no one is basing their religious beliefs on the color of the sky.

intelligent design is not typically the only evidence Christians have. It’s typically also supported by life experiences and documentation of eyewitness testimonies dating back to 3,500 years ago.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Good article, thanks. We've been trying to explain that very concept to creationists here for years.

It seems a lot of the "textbook evolution" taught in schools is outdated already - but the debate is against this strawman theory that no one really believes in anymore.

That's what it looks like anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wouldn’t call a hand full of bones numerous. All they have are a few unconfirmed theories based on assumptions.

Fractally wrong post. There are millions of bones. If you are making the error of speaking only of human evolution it is more like a shipping container of bones. And worst of all, although the bones themselves are enough evidence they are not the only evidence or even the strongest evidence. It is only the most obvious evidence to amateurs. By your standards Ted Bundy should have been found not guilty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

intelligent design is not typically the only evidence Christians have. It’s typically also supported by life experiences and documentation of eyewitness testimonies dating back to 3,500 years ago.

So no reliable evidence at all for the creationist's side. There is no scientific evidence for ID. And various religious stories are not evidence either.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Fractally wrong post. There are millions of bones. If you are making the error of speaking only of human evolution it is more like a shipping container of bones. And worst of all, although the bones themselves are enough evidence they are not the only evidence or even the strongest evidence. It is only the most obvious evidence to amateurs. By your standards Ted Bundy should have been found not guilty.

Substantiated, not alleged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Substantiated, not alleged.

Okay, what do you not understand? There is no doubt that life is the product of evolution in the world of science. There is more evidence for that theory than there is for gravity.

 

[Speedwell]

It seems a lot of the "textbook evolution" taught in schools is outdated already - but the debate is against this strawman theory that no one really believes in anymore.

That's what it looks like anyway.

And creationists still insist on calling it "Darwinism" though the man has been dead for 140 years.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Okay, what do you not understand? There is no doubt that life is the product of evolution in the world of science. There is more evidence for that theory than there is for gravity.

Today it is recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present anthropoid apes (e.g., chimpanzees) is through common ancestors rather than through direct descent. Britanica.com

Missing link | evolutionary theory

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would only be abuse if I took it out of context and applied it incorrectly. However, as a Christian who wants to see all people saved, we must first show the bad news in order for the Good News to have any meaning.

Since the verses you use do not apply to yourself opponents it is still abuse. It would be better suited to the apologetics section. No one is trying to disprove God with evolution. It only demonstrates a particular interpretation of the Bible to be wrong, just as all of the evidence that shows the Earth to be a globe refutes the interpretation of the Bible that.leads some Christians to claim that the Earth is flat.

The difference between a Flat Earther and a creationist is only a matter of degree.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So no reliable evidence at all for the creationist's side. There is no scientific evidence for ID. And various religious stories are not evidence either.

Yes the evidence is inconclusive.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

And creationists still insist on calling it "Darwinism" though the man has been dead for 140 years.

By the way, has that old theory been moved out of schools? The original linear style theory resembled a prophecy in the bible, which might be why it is viewed as evil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Today it is recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present anthropoid apes (e.g., chimpanzees) is through common ancestors rather than through direct descent. Britanica.com

Missing link | evolutionary theory

Correct. We share a common ancestor with chimps, orangutans and gorillas. No one has claimed anything else. And as an aside, man is still an anthropoid ape.

 

[Hammster]

Since the verses you use do not apply to yourself opponents it is still abuse. It would be better suited to the apologetics section. No one is trying to disprove God with evolution. It only demonstrates a particular interpretation of the Bible to be wrong, just as all of the evidence that shows the Earth to be a globe refutes the interpretation of the Bible that.leads some Christians to claim that the Earth is flat.

The difference between a Flat Earther and a creationist is only a matter of degree.

Your first sentence is a bit confusing.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Since the verses you use do not apply to yourself opponents it is still abuse. It would be better suited to the apologetics section. No one is trying to disprove God with evolution. It only demonstrates a particular interpretation of the Bible to be wrong, just as all of the evidence that shows the Earth to be a globe refutes the interpretation of the Bible that.leads some Christians to claim that the Earth is flat.

The difference between a Flat Earther and a creationist is only a matter of degree.

The 6 day creation is not only supported in Genesis but also Exodus 20:11

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This is why the sabbath isn’t every couple million years or so.