Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[TheBear]

A few questions for DMagoh.

Who made the discovery, scientists or creationists?

How old is the earth?

Do you accept the entire article?

 

[MarcusHill]

Was there an error in a detail of a small part of evolutionary science? Yes. And I guarantee many more such errors will be found and corrected.

Does this in any way invalidate the Theory of Evolution? No.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Not in this reality.

I'd reply further but it seems everyone else has already pointed out how amazingly incorrect you are about this.

 

[Logic_Fault]

I love it! Obviously this new information is disturbing to all of you.

Not in the least. As I said, it doesn't appear you fully understand what the find means.

You feel the need to lash out, and since you dont know what to say, you resort to name calling. The OP is "grossly ignorant", "one ignorant person's excuse", "this is stupid", and "glad I dont have your troubles." All very nice scientific arguments you have there. What's next? Will you say, "I know you are but what am I?" (from Pee Wee Herman), or "You're ugly and your mama dresses you funny?"

You've given them limited options. It's hard to discuss something with someone who doesn't understand what they're arguing against, doesn't understand the significance of the topic they've started and wont listen when flaws are pointed out in their position.

If evolutionist's got this wrong, which they did, you know there are other things that are wrong and being corrected everyday.

*GASP!* No! Say it ain't so!

You apparently don't seem to realize that is precisely how science works.

My point is, you are placing your faith in something that admittedly doesnt have all the answers and is constantly having to correct itself.

Self correction is one of the strongest points of scientific methodology. If it didn't correct itself it'd be outdated quickly and you'd end up with a 2,000 year old book full of worthless information. See your Bible for an example.

Yet you are willing to bet your enternity on the fact that science says there can't be a God.

No branch of science says any such thing.

 

[DMagoh]

When are you going to get it into your thick scull that evolution is there wether we like it or not,
it's not a case of believing it, it just is.

Actually, you just described the relationship between atheists and God. Just because you refuse to believe, doesnt mean He's not there.

 

[DMagoh]

Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect, you'll find it sounds alot like you.

Actually, it sounds a lot like atheists who overestimate their intelligence. Atheists think that if they cant wrap their finite brain around something, it doesnt exist. Have you ever considered the possibility that you dont know everything, and that completely dismissing the possibility of God just because your brain doesnt understand how an all-powerful, all-knowing being could exist is presumptious?

 

[Liquefied]

Actually, it sounds a lot like atheists who overestimate their intelligence. Atheists think that if they cant wrap their finite brain around something, it doesnt exist. Have you ever considered the possibility that you dont know everything, and that completely dismissing the possibility of God just because your brain doesnt understand how an all-powerful, all-knowing being could exist is presumptious?

Every atheist has considered that possibility. It's part of being an atheist.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't know everything and that completely dismissing the possibility of the Invisible Pink Unicorn just because your brain doesn't understand how an all-powerful, all-knowing being could exist is presumptuous?

See how easily your statement becomes absurd if I replace God with any other supernatural being?

 

[DMagoh]

A few questions for DMagoh.

Who made the discovery, scientists or creationists?

Scientists - but all that means is that they have to admit they are wrong yet again. Now there is nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. But there is something wrong with making eternal decisions based on information that may or may not be proven wrong. Atheists decide not to believe in God, because science can't prove His existence, when science is constantly having to admit they are wrong.

How old is the earth?

I dont claim to know the answer to that question. Depends on whether you read a literal six days or a symbolic six days. I'm content to wait until I see God face to face and let Him explain to me how He did it then.

Do you accept the entire article?

Meaning?????




A few questions for you....

How did the universe start? I mean, we know that the amount of usuable energy in the universe is decreasing which means that the universe is not infinite... all the usuable energy will eventually be used up which means it will have an end, and therefore, had to have a beginning. Also, we know the universe is expanding, so it was not always as it is now, and had to have a beginning.

 

[Nitron]

How did the universe start? I mean, we know that the amount of usuable energy in the universe is decreasing which means that the universe is not infinite... all the usuable energy will eventually be used up which means it will have an end, and therefore, had to have a beginning. Also, we know the universe is expanding, so it was not always as it is now, and had to have a beginning.

I don't know, but you pretend to for no good reason.

 

[DMagoh]

Every atheist has considered that possibility. It's part of being an atheist.

A scary part.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't know everything and that completely dismissing the possibility of the Invisible Pink Unicorn just because your brain doesn't understand how an all-powerful, all-knowing being could exist is presumptuous?

See how easily your statement becomes absurd if I replace God with any other supernatural being?

Except that there is no testimonial evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns.

You know, a lot of people are willing to die for what they believe to be true. I would die for my beliefs in God. Muslims have proven they are willing to die (WTC suicidal plane) for what they believe to be true. BUT, what if we are wrong? We could be dying for something we believe, but are wrong and not know it.

HOWEVER, few people would die for something they KNOW is a lie. There are historically accounts of all twelve disciples (except one) that were martyred for saying that Jesus died and rose again. In fact, hundreds said they saw Him after He arose from the dead, and they too were martyred. Unlike me and my Muslim friends, they would have KNOWN whether what they were saying was truth or a lie.

I believe Jesus rose from the dead, but they claim they saw Him. Either they did or didnt, and they know whether they did or not. So.... either they did see Him alive again and were willing to die for it, or they knew they didnt really see Him alive again and died for something they KNEW was a lie.

You might find one or two lunatics that would die for what they KNOW is a lie. But not literally hundreds and hundreds. If I KNEW I had not seen Jesus alive again and my head was on the chopping block, and all I had to do to go free was deny I ever saw Him, I'd be denying Him. So would you. Think about it.

 

[Mavros]

Actually, you just described the relationship between atheists and God. Just because you refuse to believe, doesnt mean He's not there.

Actually, you just described the relationship between cristians and God. Just because you believe, doesnt mean He's there.

 

[DMagoh]

How did the universe start? I mean, we know that the amount of usuable energy in the universe is decreasing which means that the universe is not infinite... all the usuable energy will eventually be used up which means it will have an end, and therefore, had to have a beginning. Also, we know the universe is expanding, so it was not always as it is now, and had to have a beginning.

I don't know, but you pretend to for no good reason.

You dont know. So, it could be a supernatural being. Either way, something supernatural had to have happened, or it violates science's law regarding the creation of matter.

 

[Liquefied]

A scary part.



Except that there is no testimonial evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns.

You know, a lot of people are willing to die for what they believe to be true. I would die for my beliefs in God. Muslims have proven they are willing to die (WTC suicidal plane) for what they believe to be true. BUT, what if we are wrong? We could be dying for something we believe, but are wrong and not know it.

HOWEVER, few people would die for something they KNOW is a lie. There are historically accounts of all twelve disciples (except one) that were martyred for saying that Jesus died and rose again. In fact, hundreds said they saw Him after He arose from the dead, and they too were martyred. Unlike me and my Muslim friends, they would have KNOWN whether what they were saying was truth or a lie.

I believe Jesus rose from the dead, but they claim they saw Him. Either they did or didnt, and they know whether they did or not. So.... either they did see Him alive again and were willing to die for it, or they knew they didnt really see Him alive again and died for something they KNEW was a lie.

You might find one or two lunatics that would die for what they KNOW is a lie. But not literally hundreds and hundreds. If I KNEW I had not seen Jesus alive again and my head was on the chopping block, and all I had to do to go free was deny I ever saw Him, I'd be denying Him. So would you. Think about it.

Ok, IPU was a bad example for you. Replace God with Thor, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, etc..

My point is that you can find plenty of testimonial evidence for any god that any group of people has ever worshiped. What makes the Judeo-Christian God special and why should I believe that story over any number of others? The fact that so many other people have been indoctrinated in to doing so is not a compelling reason for me.

 

[Moo]

Hello DMagoh, this is quite an overused image, but it seems relevant here.

This hominid discovery would be placed in the "Discover New Evidence" part of the image, and Evolutionary Theory has been modified to explain the new data.

Looking at the image, can you please explain which method, "Science" or "Faith", is the most useful for learning about the world around us?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I dont claim to know the answer to that question [the age of the earth]. Depends on whether you read a literal six days or a symbolic six days.

Should the answer not depend on the results of scientific experiments and testing rather than an ancient manuscript written by bronze age goat herders?

The age of the earth is strictly a scientific question. It's fascinating you would appeal to divine revelation to answer such a question.

 

[DMagoh]

Except that there is no testimonial evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns.

You know, a lot of people are willing to die for what they believe to be true. I would die for my beliefs in God. Muslims have proven they are willing to die (WTC suicidal plane) for what they believe to be true. BUT, what if we are wrong? We could be dying for something we believe, but are wrong and not know it.

HOWEVER, few people would die for something they KNOW is a lie. There are historically accounts of all twelve disciples (except one) that were martyred for saying that Jesus died and rose again. In fact, hundreds said they saw Him after He arose from the dead, and they too were martyred. Unlike me and my Muslim friends, they would have KNOWN whether what they were saying was truth or a lie.

I believe Jesus rose from the dead, but they claim they saw Him. Either they did or didnt, and they know whether they did or not. So.... either they did see Him alive again and were willing to die for it, or they knew they didnt really see Him alive again and died for something they KNEW was a lie.

You might find one or two lunatics that would die for what they KNOW is a lie. But not literally hundreds and hundreds. If I KNEW I had not seen Jesus alive again and my head was on the chopping block, and all I had to do to go free was deny I ever saw Him, I'd be denying Him. So would you. Think about it.

Ok, IPU was a bad example for you. Replace God with Thor, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, etc..

My point is that you can find plenty of testimonial evidence for any god that any group of people has ever worshiped. What makes the Judeo-Christian God special and why should I believe that story over any number of others? The fact that so many other people have been indoctrinated in to doing so is not a compelling reason for me.

You missed the whole point. We're not talking about beliefs. We're talking about knowledge. The Christian martyrs in the first century did not die for their beliefs - they KNEW whether they had actually seen Jesus alive again. So, either they did see Him alive again and were willing to die for it, or they KNEW they didnt really see Him alive again and died for something they KNEW was a lie. You might find one or two lunatics that would die for what they KNOW is a lie. But not literally hundreds and hundreds.

So are you saying there were hundreds of hundreds of men that claimed to have actually seen [pick one: Thor, Zeus, Ahura Mazda] and walked and talked with [pick one] and were martyred for refusing to take it back?

 

[DMagoh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMagoh
How did the universe start? I mean, we know that the amount of usuable energy in the universe is decreasing which means that the universe is not infinite... all the usuable energy will eventually be used up which means it will have an end, and therefore, had to have a beginning. Also, we know the universe is expanding, so it was not always as it is now, and had to have a beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitron
I don't know, but you pretend to for no good reason.

You dont know. So, it could be a supernatural being. Either way, something supernatural had to have happened, or it violates science's law regarding the creation of matter.

So why is everyone avoiding this question?

 

[Elduran]

So why is everyone avoiding this question?

What question would that be? A question about how you apply a time-dependent equation to a situation in which space and time cease to have any meaning? Or about a claim that energy has actually been created, despite that not in itself being a certainty?

Clarify your question and you'll get shown why you're wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientists - but all that means is that they have to admit they are wrong yet again.

Yep, that is how real knowledge is gained. This is why religious dogma stands in the way of knowledge.

Now there is nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. But there is something wrong with making eternal decisions based on information that may or may not be proven wrong.

It is even worse to make eternal decisions and not let new information inform that decision. This is why religious dogma (eg creationism) stands in the way of knowledge. Is it better to admit mistakes or ignore anything that shows you are wrong?

Atheists decide not to believe in God, because science can't prove His existence, when science is constantly having to admit they are wrong.

Atheists do not believe in God because there is not testable evidence that he does exist. Without verification you can not truly "know" that God exists. You may have faith that God exists, but this is nothing more than culturally reinforced speculation.

I dont claim to know the answer to that question. Depends on whether you read a literal six days or a symbolic six days. I'm content to wait until I see God face to face and let Him explain to me how He did it then.

You can look at nature right now and get many of those answers without referring to a supernatural deity.

How did the universe start?

I don't know.

I mean, we know that the amount of usuable energy in the universe is decreasing which means that the universe is not infinite... all the usuable energy will eventually be used up which means it will have an end, and therefore, had to have a beginning. Also, we know the universe is expanding, so it was not always as it is now, and had to have a beginning.

Clouds also have a beginning. Does this mean that clouds come about through supernatural means?

Universes may be the product of natural forces, just like clouds are the product of natural forces. Simply saying "Goddidit" answers no questions and effectively erases any reason to search for a testable and verifiable answer.

 

[Army of Juan]

You dont know. So, it could be a supernatural being. Either way, something supernatural had to have happened, or it violates science's law regarding the creation of matter.

There's no evidence that the supernatural exist (other than in the imagination) and no laws were violated. If it appears that they were then that just means that we need to update whatever law that it conflicts with.