Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

Hahaha, what? Neither science nor intelligence nor the laws of nature or logic support a god, let alone one that created us in his image. Science is quite strongly against the idea, in fact. The idea that we were created at all, let alone in the image of a creator, is patently ludicrous given what we know about evolution.

Tell me, where in debate 101, in which all of you so covet, does it claim that by laughing before or after a statement is enlightening? Do you think it makes me feel stupid? It doesn't. Do you think it makes you look intelligent? It doesn't.

Science is not strongly against the idea. Science has always concerned itself to acquiring knowledge and truth. You hold to a worldview that is set up to view life through the verification process and yet, you use unverified elements to view the world. It is contradictory at its core. First of all, you have no empirical evidence for your claim that we were not created in the image of the creator. Evolution tells us nothing about creation. Evolution was not there, has no knowledge of creation.

 

[Astridhere]

Tell me, where in debate 101, in which all of you so covet, does it claim that by laughing before or after a statement is enlightening? Do you think it makes me feel stupid? It doesn't. Do you think it makes you look intelligent? It doesn't.

Science is not strongly against the idea. Science has always concerned itself to acquiring knowledge and truth. You hold to a worldview that is set up to view life through the verification process and yet, you use unverified elements to view the world. It is contradictory at its core. First of all, you have no empirical evidence for you claim that we were not created in the image of the creator. Evolution tells us nothing about creation. Evolution was not there, has no knowledge of creation.

You are absolutely correct. Theories to support theories is not evidence of anything other than not wanting to accept the obvious.

We are created in the image of God with high level reasoning ability, perception, sophisticated language and the ability to perceive eternity, and the concept of a God and creator. Apes cannot do this and were not created in the image of God. 4 similar limbs, an ability to occasionally stand or walk errect and grunt does not make an ape nearly human, despite how clever some apes can be, nor does the fact that they can show interspecies empathy.

Abiogenesis has been separated from TOE because evolutionists, with all their advancements, cannot create life from non life and need to make this someone elses problem as they are unable to address the dilemma scientifically.

There are multiple theories as to how life, a complex system, arose all by itself. However, these remain theories along side the fact that life is here today. Evolutionists propose unproven theories as evidence for the natural creation of life. Hence science does support the creation in that 'the creation of life' currently remains in the realm of the Gods.

TOE=philosophy. Creation=science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are absolutely correct. Theories to support theories is not evidence of anything other than not wanting to accept the obvious.

Abiogenesis has been separated from TOE because evolutionists, with all their advancements, cannot create life from non life and need to make this someone elses problem as they are unable to address the dilemma scientifically.

There are multiple theories as to how life, a complex system, arose all by itself. However, these remain theories along side the fact that life is here today. Evolutionists propose unproven theories as evidence for the natural creation of life. Hence science does support the creation in that 'the creation of life' currently remains in the realm of the Gods.

Welcome to the forum! Yes, I can understand the separation in the study of abiogenesis vs evolution but to separate the two philosophically is just a cop out.

TOE=philosophy. Creation=science.

If you mean that science can only work due to Creation I totally agree.

 

[Astridhere]

Oncedeceived ..sorry my quote function is not happening.

You said...

"Welcome to the forum! Yes, I can understand the separation in the study of abiogenesis vs evolution but to separate the two philosophically is just a cop out."



I do not think I am separating them philosophically. I think I am separating them scientifically.

Creationists say God created life fully formed in kinds. I cannot explain how God coalesces organisms into viable entities. However neither can evos demonstrate how life can arise 'naturally'.

The point being that life is here and scientists cannot demonstrate life arising naturally. By omission it appears that the 'creation' is in the realms of the Gods.

Misrepresentations of fossil evidence and biased computer modelling does not provide anything more than theories that change like the wind to validate another theory. However there is no confusion when a cat looks like a dog today as quite clearly in real life the two are both clearly different kinds. Hence evolution remains philosophical and requires huge misrepresentations to remain afloat.

One example is Indoyhus the deer on its way to becoming a whale, is nothing more than a variety of mouse deer. Ambulocetus Natans looks more like a crocodile than a deer/whale intermediate. Turkana Boy, homo erectus and eragaster are just apes with side views showing just how much of an ape they actually are, including sexual dimorphism, and a plethora of fossil scraps morphed into mythical creatures and humanized.

What the fossil evidence shows is kinds being created very similar to todays creatures, others that went extinct, modern man suddenly appearing in the fossil record, a creation day at the time of the cambrian explosion as well as scientists inability to create life that remains in the realm of the Gods.

I still maintain..

TOE=Philosophy. Creation=Science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived ..sorry my quote function is not happening.

You said...

"Welcome to the forum! Yes, I can understand the separation in the study of abiogenesis vs evolution but to separate the two philosophically is just a cop out."



I do not think I am separating them philosophically. I think I am separating them scientifically.

Creationists say God created life fully formed in kinds. I cannot explain how God coalesces organisms into viable entities. However neither can evos demonstrate how life can arise 'naturally'.

The point being that life is here and scientists cannot demonstrate life arising naturally. By omission it appears that the 'creation' is in the realms of the Gods.

Misrepresentations of fossil evidence and biased computer modelling does not provide anything more than theories that change like the wind to validate another theory. However there is no confusion when a cat looks like a dog today as quite clearly in real life the two are both clearly different kinds. Hence evolution remains philosophical and requires huge misrepresentations to remain afloat.

One example is Indoyhus the deer on its way to becoming a whale, is nothing more than a variety of mouse deer. Ambulocetus Natans looks more like a crocodile than a deer/whale intermediate. Turkana Boy, homo erectus and eragaster are just apes with side views showing just how much of an ape they actually are, including sexual dimorphism, and a plethora of fossil scraps morphed into mythical creatures and humanized.

What the fossil evidence shows is kinds being created very similar to todays creatures, others that went extinct, modern man suddenly appearing in the fossil record, a creation day at the time of the cambrian explosion as well as scientists inability to create life that remains in the realm of the Gods.

I still maintain..

TOE=Philosophy. Creation=Science.

I agree. I just don't like to claim that creation equal science. Creation stands upon its own and is the foundation for science.

 

[Nostromo]

So this will have to be explained to me.

Google might be a good start, we already have one usable example below.

Hinduism is actually not a religion, it has religious connotations and here in the west is considered a religion. In fact, the Hinduism is not even a word in the culture. While the religious aspects do include gods and such, it says nothing about God claiming that we were created in His image. Of course, no one god exists in Hinduism. The reason Hinduism is not supported by science, intelligence, order, laws of nature or laws of logic is that it doesn't claim any of these things, and has nothing in its tenets that would be supported as such.

Yeah... I think you missed the bit where you explain how those things support the Christian worldview.

I can't even fathom what it is exactly you mean by "support", as the definition appears to vary between "supported by science", "is consistent with science" and "gives rise to science".

How would the Hindu worldview not "claim" any of the list you gave, surely it's obvious that any believer in Hinduism thinks that, as a result of one of the Hindu creation myths, we arrived at the same world you see, one with order, laws of nature, logic etc.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Google might be a good start, we already have one usable example below.

I googled it and all it had was the political definition. So, even google is stumped.

Yeah... I think you missed the bit where you explain how those things support the Christian worldview.

No, I've provided that numerous times within this thread.

I can't even fathom what it is exactly you mean by "support", as the definition appears to vary between "supported by science", "is consistent with science" and "gives rise to science".

I'm sorry? I am not getting what you are asking?

How would the Hindu worldview not "claim" any of the list you gave, surely it's obvious that any believer in Hinduism thinks that, as a result of one of the Hindu creation myths, we arrived at the same world you see, one with order, laws of nature, logic etc.

Well obviously, you have not researched Hinduism and have no idea what an Indian would think. Research the Hindu creation Hymns yourself and see where it claims what the Christian narrative does.

 

[Chalnoth]

Tell me, where in debate 101, in which all of you so covet, does it claim that by laughing before or after a statement is enlightening? Do you think it makes me feel stupid? It doesn't. Do you think it makes you look intelligent? It doesn't.

Science is not strongly against the idea. Science has always concerned itself to acquiring knowledge and truth. You hold to a worldview that is set up to view life through the verification process and yet, you use unverified elements to view the world. It is contradictory at its core. First of all, you have no empirical evidence for your claim that we were not created in the image of the creator. Evolution tells us nothing about creation. Evolution was not there, has no knowledge of creation.

I was laughing because your statement was sooooo incredibly ridiculous. It made me laugh. At you.

And yes, I do have empirical evidence that we weren't created. It's called evolution. Which isn't creation.

 

[Chalnoth]

I still maintain..

TOE=Philosophy. Creation=Science.

Bahahahahahahahaha.

Oh, man. Keep it up! If you repeat it often enough, maybe people will believe you! Oh, and please keep mangling the evidence too. That will help your side, surely.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was laughing because your statement was sooooo incredibly ridiculous. It made me laugh. At you.

And that is what, suppose to hurt my feelings or something?

And yes, I do have empirical evidence that we weren't created. It's called evolution. Which isn't creation.

No you don't.

 

[Chalnoth]

And yes, I do have empirical evidence that we weren't created. It's called evolution. Which isn't creation.

No you don't.

And I'm sure if you keep asserting it you'll think that means something.

I, on the other hand, can point to things like this, where the skulls are placed in order by their age:

Source: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

This demonstrates, beyond all reasonable doubt, that humans are just one species in a long line of apes. There is no sudden "moment of creation": we arose gradually over many generations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And I'm sure if you keep asserting it you'll think that means something.

I, on the other hand, can point to things like this, where the skulls are placed in order by their age:

Source: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

This demonstrates, beyond all reasonable doubt, that humans are just one species in a long line of apes. There is no sudden "moment of creation": we arose gradually over many generations.

This doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. There is no common ancestor in the lot. You can show me all the skulls you'd like, but not one of them is the common ancestor that links the two species together.

 

[Simply_Amazing]

This doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. There is no common ancestor in the lot. You can show me all the skulls you'd like, but not one of them is the common ancestor that links the two species together.

How many times do we have to explain this to you guys? "Species" is arbitrary and has limited usefulness. Since fossils are rare and constitute a snapshot in time, we can group them into categories based on their characteristics. Humans have also only been sufficiently intelligent for a snapshot in time (considering the scales evolution deals in) so we can use categories to group animals based on their characteristics. In the big picture such classifications lose their usefulness.

Every individual is a transitional species from their ancestors to their descendants. When differences become enough to change something into a new species is entirely subjective. Please don't keep using this old line. It's as bad as "irreducible complexity", and it only stops people from taking you seriously.

This might help. I believe Delphiki made this:

We all can agree (save for the severely color blind) that this text is red.

We can also similarly agree that this text is blue.

If we have red text and decide to change it by just a small amount, the change might be barely noticeable, but still a very small change. This, we will call our micro-evolution. Every word up to now can be considered red, with very minute changes in the hue. If I keep typing long enough, would anyone be able to tell me, just by looking, at which word or letter is this post no longer red, but actually purple or blue? All this micro-evolution keeps occurring in the text, with it's tiny changes in hue, but ultimately, I end up with a completely different color. It's actually the difference between what one would consider red and what one would consider purple (or a whole new species, in this analogy) which is macro-evolution. See, the common misunderstanding is, that macro-evolution means a dog being a direct offspring of some other different canine-like species, or even more stupidly, a cat coming from a dog. Well, that's not what macro-evolution is. There is really only one distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and it's the same distinction between their prefixes: micro and macro. Just like if something is microscopic or if something is macroscopic. Microscopic usually requires a microscope to see it because it's so small, but the macroscopic are things large enough to be seen by the common human eye. However, things of both size are completely visible and plainly exist, and there are many things in this universe between both general sizes. So as you read this, can you tell me the first word here that is blue, and not purple? After all, every change in color since the first word in this paragraph has only micro-evolved from the color next to it, but we've managed to macro-evolve through 2 colors. This, hopefully, will illustrate how it's illogical to believe that macro-evolution doesn't happen, even given time for enough micro-evolution to occur.

So tell me -- what was the first purple word in the block of text above? What's the first blue word? Remember, if macro-evolution simply can not happen then you're saying the words you are reading now are still red.

Edit: Just FYI. While transitional fossils between species are explained above, there is a type of legitimate transitional species. One between two wider classifications with specifically defined characteristics like a reptile and a mammal. We have plenty of those animals if you'd like to see them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

 

[Chalnoth]

This doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. There is no common ancestor in the lot. You can show me all the skulls you'd like, but not one of them is the common ancestor that links the two species together.

And your point is? They are still proof positive of the existence of a common ancestor. And they're only the barest tip of the iceberg when it comes to the evidence we have available to us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How many times do we have to explain this to you guys? "Species" is arbitrary and has limited usefulness. Since fossils are rare and constitute a snapshot in time, we can group them into categories based on their characteristics. Humans have also only been sufficiently intelligent for a snapshot in time (considering the scales evolution deals in) so we can use categories to group animals based on their characteristics. In the big picture such classifications lose their usefulness.

Every individual is a transitional species from their ancestors to their descendants. When differences become enough to change something into a new species is entirely subjective. Please don't keep using this old line. It's as bad as "irreducible complexity", and it only stops people from taking you seriously.

Nice little exercise. Looks impressive. If only so simple right?

However, I know for certain that the "old line" is still used in evolutionary thought. Don't act like it is something out of line with the truth. Every archeologist out there is looking for the common ancestor. Every find talks about it, and every find changes the evolutionary model for the human evolutionary line.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And your point is? They are still proof positive of the existence of a common ancestor. And they're only the barest tip of the iceberg when it comes to the evidence we have available to us.

Really? Just what evidence is available to us that morphs the fossils?

It is not proof positive. In fact, the more fossils that are found the more out of sync the evolutionary model spins.

 

[Chalnoth]

Really? Just what evidence is available to us that morphs the fossils?

Morphs the fossils? What are you talking about?

It is not proof positive. In fact, the more fossils that are found the more out of sync the evolutionary model spins.

I always find it amazing how you people continually try to claim that finding more evidence for evolution somehow falsifies it. I see it rather like this:

Me: "Water is wet."
You: "No it isn't! Science says so!"
Me: (I splash you with water)
You: "See! This is proof that water isn't wet!"
Me: (sighs and walks away)

 

[Oncedeceived]

Morphs the fossils? What are you talking about?

You claimed that the fossil evidence you presented was just the 'tip of the iceberg' of the evidence available to us. So what 'huge' amount of evidence did you not include?

I always find it amazing how you people continually try to claim that finding more evidence for evolution somehow falsifies it. I see it rather like this:

Me: "Water is wet."
You: "No it isn't! Science says so!"
Me: (I splash you with water)
You: "See! This is proof that water isn't wet!"
Me: (sighs and walks away)

Straw man.

 

[Astridhere]

And I'm sure if you keep asserting it you'll think that means something.

I, on the other hand, can point to things like this, where the skulls are placed in order by their age:

Source: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

This demonstrates, beyond all reasonable doubt, that humans are just one species in a long line of apes. There is no sudden "moment of creation": we arose gradually over many generations.

Can a creationist please put up the pictures in this article

Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed

ScienceDaily (Mar. 27, 2007

This article shows Rudolfenesis (F) in your pretty pictures, as he was and as he is now reconstucted to look like....an ape. The top line of your pictures are obviously all apes. Look at all of them up untill and including (I). They are all apes. They have likely been biasedly reconstructed just like Rudolfensis and still they look like apes.

Further to that, Lluc, Anoiapithecus brevirostris, is another pile of bones that have been reconstructed to be..a flat faced ape, 12my old.

New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features

ScienceDaily (June 2, 2009)


Turkana Boy, the most complete Homo erectus found, and found in pieces I may add, has a small neural canal and was unable to produce sophisticated speech. I know why! It is an ape. The side view looks like an ape. It is an ape, not an intermediate.

Do you know why there is a lack of fossils found to demonstrate ape, particularly chimp, ancestry back to common ancestors? Because everything found with limbs and a head or chards of same, gets shoved into the human line.

The other thing is good old Lucy..find the original skeleton and take a look at her skull. It does not appear to have any heavy eye brow ridging at all. So here is an ape with no eye brow riding that over the next 3my became ridged like some other apes, just so it could be lost in becoming human.

I am sorry. Your science demonstrates creation. You have found varieties of apes and mankind which concurs with biblical creation. It take the convolutions of a philosophy to turn obvious evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery.

 

[Astridhere]

And your point is? They are still proof positive of the existence of a common ancestor. And they're only the barest tip of the iceberg when it comes to the evidence we have available to us.

Actually, pretty much most of your intermediates are misrepresentations.

Remember how Neanderthal once looked like an ape man. There were no new discoveries that morphed Neanderthal into a human indiscernable from the variety of humans today. It was DNA. Hence, thank the Lord, he gave us this evidence and folley that demonstrates just how biased your representations can be.

It is not the researchers fault. They are desperate. However many creationists can see your intermediates for what they are.