Okay, for what's it worth, I agree that we look more like each other than we do the ocean. Then again, a bowling ball looks more like a coconut than either looks like a tree.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But the point is that humans and australopithecines look more like one another than either does to the ocean. And the question is why? If you don't deny the evidence for evolution, then I suppose the question is not for you. I'm directing it specifically at those who deny evolution.
Maybe superficially. Does a bowling ball contain cells, though? Does it contain lignin and cellulose? Does it grow? Can it reproduce?Okay, for what's it worth, I agree that we look more like each other than we do the ocean. Then again, a bowling ball looks more like a coconut than either looks like a tree.
Maybe superficially. Does a bowling ball contain cells, though? Does it contain lignin and cellulose? Does it grow? Can it reproduce?
No.
The fact of the matter is that coconuts and trees -- while they may appear different -- are actually very similar in detail, and so on this basis, we would infer biological relationships. Not so with the bowling ball, which isn't even alive.
(Actually, this is a bad example because coconuts are produced by trees. We know this from direct observation so we do not need to infer it.)
I think your point -- if you had one -- is moot, Chesterton.
I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
Albert Einstein 1931
Maybe superficially. Does a bowling ball contain cells, though? Does it contain lignin and cellulose? Does it grow? Can it reproduce?
No.
The fact of the matter is that coconuts and trees -- while they may appear different -- are actually very similar in detail, and so on this basis, we would infer biological relationships. Not so with the bowling ball, which isn't even alive.
(Actually, this is a bad example because coconuts are produced by trees. We know this from direct observation so we do not need to infer it.)
I think your point -- if you had one -- is moot, Chesterton.
I struggle to see why you fight so hard against the account of Genesis.Whats the problem with accepting life was created according to its kind?Can you answer this post please?Im curious.
I would think it applies in every science, I was watching a series on BBC on Chemistry they really needed great imaginations to come up with the periodic table especially before they had all the elements and had no idea how many were missing or how many gaps there were in the list they had. But imagination does not mean imagining the evidence supports you, it means being able to imagine unthought of explanations for the evidence you have, before looking for more hard evidence to confirm or contradict your wild imagination.Does this apply to paleontology?I understand an imagination was needed,when we look around at the myriad of inventions in the last 200 years,but i would think that when studying fossils ,that when someone starts attributing characteristics to the said fossils,that reality can become blurred.
I'm not "fighting against the account of Genesis", although I affirm that a concordist reading of the account misses the point of why it was written.I struggle to see why you fight so hard against the account of Genesis.
Because it goes against the evidence from God's creation. I deny that the sky is solid, too, despite the Bible's attestation otherwise.Whats the problem with accepting life was created according to its kind?
Does this apply to paleontology?I understand an imagination was needed,when we look around at the myriad of inventions in the last 200 years,but i would think that when studying fossils ,that when someone starts attributing characteristics to the said fossils,that reality can become blurred.
I would think it applies in every science, I was watching a series on BBC on Chemistry they really needed great imaginations to come up with the periodic table especially before they had all the elements and had no idea how many were missing or how many gaps there were in the list they had. But imagination does not mean imagining the evidence supports you, it means being able to imagine unthought of explanations for the evidence you have, before looking for more hard evidence to confirm or contradict your wild imagination.
So when God inspired moses to write that he created the heavens and the earth,made animals according to their kind and formed adam from clay,and eve from his rib,he didnt mean that at all...I'm not "fighting against the account of Genesis", although I affirm that a concordist reading of the account misses the point of why it was written.
Dude it goes against your neo darwinist views inculcated into you, not Gods creation.Humans have the hallmark of being distinct and without fail ALWAYS reproduce after their own kind.Im just telling it how it is.Because it goes against the evidence from God's creation.
Then you clearly ignored the paper I posted in the OP. Check it out.When i look at Lucy i see a variety of chimpanzee.
Go back to genesis,read the account,interpret the hebrew words.First you'd have to define "kind". What is a kind? How do you tell one kind from another?
Say what?Regardless of the definition?Why ask in the first place if you arent willing to explore and test what you believe?But pretty much regardless of the definition,
Simply not true.All the evidence apart from some small instances where plaster of paris has been used rather liberally,supports my belief.it's because none of the evidence supports such a situation.
Then you clearly ignored the paper I posted in the OP. Check it out.
Do you believe God meant it when He said the earth is shaped like flattened piece of clay? Do you believe He meant it when He said the earth sits on pillars? Do you believe He meant it when He said the sky is solid like hammered metal?So when God inspired moses to write that he created the heavens and the earth,made animals according to their kind and formed adam from clay,and eve from his rib,he didnt mean that at all...
Yeah its almost far too simple to understand.
Why did God create life as a nested hierarchy, then? That's not a product of a Neodarwinist framework; that's an objective observation that is explainable only by common descent. Even YECs like Dr. Todd Wood will tell you that.Dude it goes against your neo darwinist views inculcated into you, not Gods creation.Humans have the hallmark of being distinct and without fail ALWAYS reproduce after their own kind.Im just telling it how it is.
So how do you account for all the human features we see in Lucy? 61% of the features described in the article are human-like, and 39% are ape-like. Lucy is also intermediate in size between humans and chimps. So to say that Lucy is a chimpanzee is to ignore 61% of the data.I didnt ignore it,i dont agree with it.Lucys missing a skull is 3 feet high and looks simian.Can you answer how you came to the conclusion that she is superior mentally to any other chimp please?im interested how you managed this.
Why?Genesis wasnt a poem.Some things in the bible are meant to be literal,some things are metaphorical.Do you believe God meant it when He said the earth is shaped like flattened piece of clay? Do you believe He meant it when He said the earth sits on pillars? Do you believe He meant it when He said the sky is solid like hammered metal?
I hope you take these biblical descriptions of cosmology literally, too, lest you be a hypocrite.
I have to emphasise here that i believe in the account of flood and that to a degree there is common descent.For example i believe the worlds dog population came from 7 dogs etc.I just dont agree EVERYTHING came from protoplasm or everything shares a common ancestor.Why did God create life as a nested hierarchy, then? That's not a product of a Neodarwinist framework; that's an objective observation that is explainable only by common descent. Even YECs like Dr. Todd Wood will tell you that.
Lucy could just be a bigger variety of chimp.Why do you keep inferring shes connected to us?So how do you account for all the human features we see in Lucy? 61% of the features described in the article are human-like, and 39% are ape-like. Lucy is also intermediate in size between humans and chimps. So to say that Lucy is a chimpanzee is to ignore 61% of the data.
Right. And I would include the creation account in the latter because it does not agree with what we see in God's creation. Don't forget, before science we used to read the Bible's cosmology literally, too. Luther thought the sun went around the earth and that the sky was solid based on a literal reading of numerous books of the Bible.Why?Genesis wasnt a poem.Some things in the bible are meant to be literal,some things are metaphorical.
Okay. So why did God create life within a nested hierarchy? I would like an honest answer to this question.I have to emphasise here that i believe in the account of flood and that to a degree there is common descent.For example i believe the worlds dog population came from 7 dogs etc.I just dont agree EVERYTHING came from protoplasm or everything shares a common ancestor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?