Could this generation of creationists be the last?

[Inan3]

Please show the website where you got these. I am not saying they are not correct but you are supposed to add the website when you copy and paste.

Now as to Josephus' writings above it does not specifically say which "decent allegory" he was referring to. In other words, he does not say that Genesis 1 is an allegory. He does say in "two" sentences prior to the reference you gave above (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Preface 4) the following:

"Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upwards to regard God, and His creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. "

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/preface/chapter-1.html?p=2

This would agree with Genesis 1:26 that man was made in the image and likeness of God, and would disqualify that man EVOLVED from OTHER creatures.

I further would like to add that here Josephus was trying to get them to see that Moses wanted to elevate their minds to the thought that they could relate to God on a man to God basis. He wanted them to know that it was God's intent for them to relate and know Him via His laws and the scriptrues and eventually through Christ via the spirit. It wasn't just a contract between Moses and them but rather between God and them. That He had created them so that they COULD relate to God. He had created them male and female and given them the ability to relate on the God level.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Given that scientists are pushing back the boundaries of ignorance further and further every year do you think that this generation of creationists could well be the last generation of creationists?

When you look at what has happened in the last 50 years it makes one wonder what the next 50 years will bring.

Please let's not argue for or against this advancment of knowledge let's just accept that it will come no matter what.

I think we passed the point long ago scientifically where creationism should have died. I blame compartmentalization on the base of religion, and in the United States, lax education standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

I blame compartmentalization on the base of religion, and in the United States, lax education standards.

Did you meen you blame compartmentalization on the basis of religion.

Theese lax education standerds certenly make us look bad don't they.

 

[Inan3]

I think we passed the point long ago scientifically where creationism should have died. I blame compartmentalization on the base of religion, and in the United States, lax education standards.

It is so amazing to me that people can really think like this. Creationism will not die because it is the truth and you all know that the flaws with evolutionism have not even convinced any of YOU yet, never mind creationists. You know it doesn't really hold water. You just want it to so bad you won't let it go. You just want so much to get rid of God that you keep falling back on evolution which "holds no water" and is no good for ducks, insane or otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is so amazing to me that people can really think like this. Creationism will not die because it is the truth and you all know that the flaws with evolutionism have not even convinced any of YOU yet, never mind creationists. You know it doesn't really hold water. You just want it to so bad you won't let it go. You just want so much to get rid of God that you keep falling back on evolution which "holds no water" and is no good for ducks, insane or otherwise.

Rembor sis that the anser too all are problims is a propor edjacashun.

i love it wen peeple tel us that we all need to get one. and do so with poar punkshuwayshun?

 

[Inan3]

Rembor sis that the anser too all are problims is a propor edjacashun.

i love it wen peeple tel us that we all need to get one. and do so with poar punkshuwayshun?

Yo..brutha!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yo..brutha!!

-- I'm so glad you came back to CF!

 

[Insane_Duck]

Rembor sis that the anser too all are problims is a propor edjacashun.

i love it wen peeple tel us that we all need to get one. and do so with poar punkshuwayshun?

You can't deny that countries with higher education standards have a much higher atheistic population. I'm not about to deny that there aren't informed creationists, which is why I counted the remainder up to compartmentalization (yes, on the basis of religion) based mostly on personal experience. Once you grow up with the idea that faith (by definition, believing something without evidence or reason to do so) is superior to facts, it is a hard mindset to shake. I know many intelligent Christians that except evolution, although a few sparse intelligent Christians that are creationist. Having seen your posts here AVET, the fact that you've fallen victim to a very infectious meme is becoming increasingly obvious.

Edited to fix grammar

 

[Insane_Duck]

It is so amazing to me that people can really think like this. Creationism will not die because it is the truth and you all know that the flaws with evolutionism have not even convinced any of YOU yet, never mind creationists. You know it doesn't really hold water. You just want it to so bad you won't let it go. You just want so much to get rid of God that you keep falling back on evolution which "holds no water" and is no good for ducks, insane or otherwise.

Disregarding all duck analogies, it's really sad that people think like this. Creationism is dismissed because of a lack of evidence. The great thing about science is that it is falsifiable. Disprove evolution and collect your noble prize, its actually beneficial to individual scientists to disprove a long held and respected theory.

Edited to fix grammar

 

[Inan3]

Disregarding all duck analogies, it's really sad that people think like this. Creationism is dismissed because of a lack of evidence. The great thing about science is that it is falsifiable. Disprove evolution and collect your nobel prize, its actually beneficial to individual scientists to disprove a long held and respected theory.

Well, we look forward to that day. You're right... it has been a long held and respected theory, and yet, it has not been proved. So how do you disprove an unproved theory?

Creationism has a wealth of evidence ... it is the people who actually believe in it. It is the God behind the people who actually believe in it. It is modern man. He has always been above every other creature and still is and always will be. Man is created in God's image. Oh yes, plenty of evidence. You just have to be willing to look at it. It has more evidence than evolution.

Evolution declares a common ancestor that NO ONE knows who that is and has no evidence or data regarding it and yet they still put their faith in one that exists. No evidence, no proof, just fairy tales that do not change peoples lives or make them better in any way.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Well, we look forward to that day. You're right... it has been a long held and respected theory, and yet, it has not been proved. So how do you disprove an unproved theory?

Creationism has a wealth of evidence ... it is the people who actually believe in it. It is the God behind the people who actually believe in it. It is modern man. He has always been above every other creature and still is and always will be. Man is created in God's image. Oh yes, plenty of evidence. You just have to be willing to look at it. It has more evidence than evolution.

Evolution declares a common ancestor that NO ONE knows who that is and has no evidence or data regarding it and yet they still put their faith in one that exists. No evidence, no proof, just fairy tales that do not change peoples lives or make them better in any way.

We have a fairly detailed history of human evolution.

Go to talkorigins .org

The site is a fairly comprehensive list of evidence for evolution. Start at the FAQ. I fail to see any evidence of creationism in your post. The only thing you brought up is God... You have no proof of God's existence, and certainly no proof that God (should he exist) is the christian God. Or even a theistic God at all.

We have many human ancestors, there isn't ONE human common ancestor, there are many. Every animal is currently at a transition stage, from their ancestors, and to their descendants. All of whom are different. Just look at the site, there's all the proof you need.

Edited to fix grammar.

 

[MoonLancer]

Well, we look forward to that day. You're right... it has been a long held and respected theory, and yet, it has not been proved. So how do you disprove an unproved theory?

Actually you quite wrong on the matter. The issue here is not evolution. its that you have a dogma that you place blind faith in.

How do i know. Is there any evidence that can convince you evolution is true? if there is no such possible evidence you have shown your bias and so its no wonder you say evolution is an unproved theory.

Creationism has a wealth of evidence ... it is the people who actually believe in it. It is the God behind the people who actually believe in it. It is modern man. He has always been above every other creature and still is and always will be. Man is created in God's image. Oh yes, plenty of evidence. You just have to be willing to look at it. It has more evidence than evolution.

I like how you say "creationism has a wealth of evidence" and then go on to say nothing about the evidence and commit a red herring.

Evolution declares a common ancestor that NO ONE knows who that is and has no evidence or data regarding it and yet they still put their faith in one that exists. No evidence, no proof, just fairy tales that do not change peoples lives or make them better in any way.

The evidence is in your dna.

 

[Inan3]

We have a fairly detailed history of human evolution.

Go to talkorgins .org

The site is a fairly comprehensive list of evidence for evolution. Start at the FAQ. I fail to see any evidence of creationism in your post. The only thing you brought up is God... You have no proof of God's existence, and certainly no proof that God (should he exist) is the christian God. Or even a theistic God at all.

We have many human ancestors, there isn't ONE human common ancestor, there are many. Every animal is currently at a transition stage, from their ancestors, and to their descendants. All of whom are different. Just look at the site, there's all the proof you need.

Okay then explain this to me. Why can't we get some concrete real answers about where we came from. It's all speculation from the beginning point. I believe we have as you said, "a fairly detailed history" of biological factors and changes that happen over time in certain animals or insects, etc. but not so much in humans. And that does not prove or become a fact, (as they say on talkorigins.com), that we have a common ancestor. Perhaps you should go back to talkorigins if you don't believe we only have one common ancestor. That's what they believe but it is not a fact. That part is only theory. That is only an "accepted" view on how it "might" have happened.

"First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html


I suggest you listen to this. To me it shows where we really are as far as evolution is concerned ... all speculation depending on how far you want to go with it but then it still ends up "speculation."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&NR=1

 

[Insane_Duck]

Okay then explain this to me. Why can't we get some concrete real answers about where we came from. It's all speculation from the beginning point. I believe we have as you said, "a fairly detailed history" of biological factors and changes that happen over time in certain animals or insects, etc. but not so much in humans. And that does not prove or become a fact, (as they say on talkorigins.com), that we have a common ancestor. Perhaps you should go back to talkorigins if you don't believe we only have one common ancestor. That's what they believe but it is not a fact. That part is only theory. That is only an "accepted" view on how it "might" have happened.

"First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved."



I suggest you listen to this. To me it shows where we really are as far as evolution is concerned ... all speculation depending on how far you want to go with it but then it still ends up "speculation."

That interview is an old creationist ploy, and Richard Dawkins actually gave an answer to it. I can answer every question in that interview. (off topic: Did anyone see Ben Steins horrible defense of that French official accused of raping a maid recently?)

And to answer your question, evolution occurs just as much in insects as humans. We just haven't been conscience long enough to notice it. We have gotten taller and smarter in recent memory however. We actually have a long line of human ancestors (including Australopithecus) that are mentioned at that site. We've only been as self aware as we are today for 10,000 some years. Evolution takes much longer.

Edited to fix grammar (Auto correct: conscience = concierge... ?)

 

[AV1611VET]

I know many intelligent Christians that except evolution...

You mean, "accept"?

I don't normally point out peoples' errors in grammar; Heaven knows how bad mine is.

But when people rail against education and the lack thereof, I get a little peeved.

There are two people here in particular that do that, and use poor grammar and punctuation to tell us we're behind in science.

 

[mathclub]

Okay then explain this to me. Why can't we get some concrete real answers about where we came from. It's all speculation from the beginning point. I believe we have as you said, "a fairly detailed history" of biological factors and changes that happen over time in certain animals or insects, etc. but not so much in humans. And that does not prove or become a fact, (as they say on talkorigins.com), that we have a common ancestor. Perhaps you should go back to talkorigins if you don't believe we only have one common ancestor. That's what they believe but it is not a fact. That part is only theory. That is only an "accepted" view on how it "might" have happened.

"First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html


I suggest you listen to this. To me it shows where we really are as far as evolution is concerned ... all speculation depending on how far you want to go with it but then it still ends up "speculation."

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&NR=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&NR=1[/URL]

honestly, this forum is just one creationist after another who either doesn't understand basic scientific principles, yet they want to have an opinion on science and expect people to take it seriously.

In this video dawkins discusses abiogenesis (the start of life) which is different than evolution. He also speculates by trying to squeeze some type of ID into our understanding of the world, despite there being no evidence for it. There is no speculation about evolution as a theory. And if there are parts of something scientists don't understand, they might speculate for fun, to humour an interviewer or out of interest, but when it comes to what we know and what we don't then any speculation is left out. We know evolution happens. There is no speculation about it and I honestly can't see how you could think otherwise.

 

[visa]

There is no speculation about it and I honestly can't see how you could think otherwise.

Because they are told to think otherwise, and good creationists always try to do as they are told, why else would they keep coming up with the same old tired and refuted arguments? they must have been told to ask the questions but never listen to the answers, in that way they can ask the same questions again and again because they genuinely have never heard the answers, to be able to do that requires a life time of indoctrination.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they are told to think otherwise, and good creationists always try to do as they are told, why else would they keep coming up with the same old tired and refuted arguments?

Excuse me, but your pretense that you guys have 'heard it all' doesn't cut it.

I came here with something most people never even heard of, and still get the cold shoulder.

So you can take that lament elsewhere -- you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Whether I use the Bible, basic doctrine, or freethinking to answer you guys' unceasing questions -- I still get the same old ridicule in your replies.

You don't fool me one bit, and you're about as see-through as a new window pane.

(In fact, all of you are.)

 

[Nostromo]

Okay then explain this to me. Why can't we get some concrete real answers about where we came from.

Why would you expect it to be any different? If there were no witnesses, no written language, millions of years passing, no omnipotent deity to recount it to people later, and only fossilised remains (which by their nature are pretty rare occurences), isn't an incomplete picture exactly what you should see?

 

[Hespera]

Why would you expect it to be any different? If there were no witnesses, no written language, millions of years passing, no omnipotent deity to recount it to people later, and only fossilised remains (which by their nature are pretty rare occurences), isn't an incomplete picture exactly what you should see?

We have some of the pieces of the story.

An incomplete picture.

That is also true of the history of WW2.

We do have skeletal remains of creatures who clearly were not modern humans but are eerily similar and we find them in a sequence from less to more human looking, up thru homo habilis, erectus etc, and modern man.

What does a reasonable person infer from that?

It has zero value unless we find every single last piece?

How irrational does a person have to be to be a creationist?

btw if Inan is reading,you falsely accused me of calling you stupid.

perhaps youd like to get that off your conscience.