Darwinism Proved! Dog Gives Birth to Kittens!!

[Meshach]

I don't accept that. I spent half my working life doing science and knew hundreds of scientists just like me. The very last thing we would do would be to forge results. Why? It is not only a matter of integrity, though that is the main reason, but of plain common sense. Since a lot of work is repeated, sooner or later other scientists are bound to uncover the forgeries. Such a discovery would instantly end one's scientific career and you'd be shamed and out of a job.

Then there's the motive. It seems you have in mind some grand conspiracy, but that's because you've been taken in by the mud-slinging of the creationist movement. A major incentive in science is to become well-known by making new discoveries and formulating new ideas, not hiding something away. Of course scientists can be taken in by forgeries made by others for financial gain. Then there's the odd ball who, for devious reasons, introduces a forgery just for the hell of it. Then there are those who exaggerated their findings. Scientists are fallible humans beings, but these examples are eventually discovered and corrected.



Related to an ape? Shock horror. Now tell us what morphological, physiological and biochemical differences there are between you and a chimp.



Please supply a reference for this.



Please supply a reference.



Reference please.



You make my point — science is self correcting. A lot of media hype and "experts have debunked [...the hypothesis...] she provides the "missing link" in the evolution of primates to humans." (from the article).



That is not the point at issue. You are assuming, speculating, and promoting the probability (your word) that biologists have hidden fossils that do not conform to the evolution paradigm. You've "heard of it", but you cannot offer a shred of evidence to back your claim up.

Fine, you can keep your assumptions, I will keep mine.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Fine, you can keep your assumptions, I will keep mine.

I'm not aware I've presented you with any assumptions. I'm just asking you, politely I hope, to back up your claims using external references. Then we can see whether there is any truth behind them or not — in particular, that palaeontologists have deliberately hidden fossils that don't accord with the ToE — something you told us was a "probability".

If you can't support your claims, then we must conclude they are just empty and invalid assumptions and you're welcome to keep them.

 

[Assyrian]

17 years , then you should be aware of the classification God puts you in.

Ecc 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.

The Bible explains in detail why God made man. It reveals our purpose for existence. It provides instruction on ideal human conduct. It shows our ultimate potential.

Genesis 1:25-27.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Take note of how clearly God delineates the human kingdom from the animal kingdom? In verse 25, God explained how He made each species of animal after its own kind, the “cattle after their kind,” and “every winged fowl after his kind.” But read verses 26-27 again: God made man after the God kind!
He didn’t just create humans as a separate kingdom higher than that of the animals; He created humans after the God kind, with a colossal potential that no animal can ever have. One person wrote: “This revealed knowledge of God’s purpose for mankind—of man’s incredible awesome potential—staggers the imagination. Science knows nothing of it—no religion reveals it … and certainly higher education is in utter ignorance of it”
So if you want to classify yourself a beast of the feild because of what fallible man comes up with,thats fine. For me I will stick to the unfailling, infallibe, classification God puts me in. The difference is obvious between the two and as I have been saying the difference should be our focus.
I too have been attending church for over a decade and I guess another difference between you and I is I cant wait to get back in there. I was glad when they said unto me. "let us go into the house of the Lord"

I wouldn't call myself a 'beast of the field' because I live in a house, however the word 'beast' is the Hebrew word chai meaning life or living and is used for people as well as animals, in fact it is more often used for people than animals.

There is a broader classification in the bible than beast of the field and you find it in the verse before the ones you quote.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
It is the phrase nephesh chai, living creatures which as you can see in verse 24 covers beasts of the field, livestock, and creeping things. If you look back in verses 20 & 21, it is used for sea creatures too. It is also the term in Genesis used to describe humans Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. So while we are living creatures made in God's image, we are still living creatures, like every other animal.

 

[Split Rock]

Once again a display of a twisted, and distorted veiw of the intent of God's Word. It is what I would expect.

You seem to get a lot of "what I would expect." Self fulfilling prophecy, perhaps?

Fine, you can keep your assumptions, I will keep mine.

The only assumption we work with in science is that natural phenomena can be explained by natural laws. So far, this technique has never failed us.

 

[Doveaman]

But as I said, the very nature of science means it has to ignore the supernatural.

This is a flawed approach to science, in my opinion. Science deals with nature. God created nature. How can He be ignored.

There is only so much we can learn about nature without input from its Creator. This is why when scientists become stuck in the mud of nature they then have to invoke exotic dark deities to get them unstuck.

It would be easier for them to just say 'God did it' instead of making up new exotic deities to do it.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" - Rom 1:20.

 

[Doveaman]

Much more than can be given by the dark deities of Scientific Theory.

 

[Doveaman]

Ecc 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.

John 10:34-36 - Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'?
If He [God] called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say...'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

It is also the term in Genesis used to describe humans Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. So while we are living creatures made in God's image, we are still living creatures, like every other animal.

Which, according to your reasoning, makes every other animal in God's image.

Including these:

 

[OllieFranz]

This is a flawed approach to science, in my opinion. Science deals with nature. God created nature. How can He be ignored.

There is no other way to approach science. If the goal is to study the rules of baseball, you don't examine football games, you examine baseball games. If the goal is to study the laws of nature, you don't examine the supernatural, you examine the natural.

There is only so much we can learn about nature without input from its Creator.

Agreed, but with one change -- I would substitute the word "reality" or the phrase "the universe" or even "creation" for the word "nature." That is why we study more than just science. We study theology, philosophy, metaphysics, abstract disciplines such as math and logic, etc. for a well-rounded education

This is why when scientists become stuck in the mud of nature they then have to invoke exotic dark deities to get them unstuck.

I don't know what you mean by this. Scientists as humans have human beliefs, and that means most Western scientist are either Christians or "post-Christian" (atheist, agnostic, sceptic, etc. with a cultural background arising from Christian roots). What "exotic, dark dieties" are you talking about?

It would be easier for them to just say 'God did it' instead of making up new exotic deities to do it.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" - Rom 1:20.

When a tool (in this case, science) is working correctly and doing the job it is designed to do (examine the rules of nature), why should you castigate it for not being able to something it was never intended to do and never designed to do (explain God)? Do you call a screwdriver a bad tool because you can't hammer nails with it? Or do you just go ahead and use the hammer that sits next to it in the toolbox?

Yes, we can, and should, learn about God from His creation, but science is not the right tool for that job.

 

[Split Rock]

This is a flawed approach to science, in my opinion. Science deals with nature. God created nature. How can He be ignored.

Show us how we can test for supernatural cause, and we will do so. Go ahead... you'll be the first creationist to explain this.

 

[Freodin]

This is a flawed approach to science, in my opinion. Science deals with nature. God created nature. How can He be ignored.

There is only so much we can learn about nature without input from its Creator. This is why when scientists become stuck in the mud of nature they then have to invoke exotic dark deities to get them unstuck.

It would be easier for them to just say 'God did it' instead of making up new exotic deities to do it.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" - Rom 1:20.

Making up new exotic deities? Such as the mythological force called "electromagnetism" that you like to talk about?

Surely such a force does not exist... it is God who did it!

But you yourself deign to call upon "electromagnetism" and "plasma cosmology".... while applauding posts which deny "gravity" at all.

Is "electromagnetism" the Hand of God? Is "gravity" not?

Either you call both of it "God doing it" - and leave it to the scientists just how God seems to "do it"... or none. But that doesn´t change the observations, the calculations and the conclusions.

 

[Doveaman]

There is no other way to approach science. If the goal is to study the rules of baseball, you don't examine football games, you examine baseball games. If the goal is to study the laws of nature, you don't examine the supernatural, you examine the natural.

We cannot fully understand the natural unless we depend on the Supernatural Creator of the natural. He knows the natural better than we do. Don't you think He would want to help us understand it?

I don't know what you mean by this...What "exotic, dark dieties" are you talking about?

They are nothing to be concerned about, those who rely on them don't know what they mean either, but they rely on them anyway.

When a tool (in this case, science) is working correctly

Science is not working correctly. It relies on dark deities.

and doing the job it is designed to do (examine the rules of nature),

Science is not doing the job it is designed to do. It relies on dark deities to do it.

why should you castigate it for not being able to something it was never intended to do and never designed to do (explain God)?

It does not explain God, but it does reveal God. If it's not, then it's not science.

Do you call a screwdriver a bad tool because you can't hammer nails with it? Or do you just go ahead and use the hammer that sits next to it in the toolbox?

We do not use science to find the Creator, we rely on the Creator to better understand the creation. When we do this, the creation reveals God. The purpose of creation is to reveal the God.

Yes, we can, and should, learn about God from His creation, but science is not the right tool for that job.

I think it's an ideal tool for that job. Is science man made, or God given?

"Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" - Rom 1:19-20.

 

[Meshach]

Ecc 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.

I wouldn't call myself a 'beast of the field' because I live in a house, however the word 'beast' is the Hebrew word chai meaning life or living and is used for people as well as animals, in fact it is more often used for people than animals.

There is a broader classification in the bible than beast of the field and you find it in the verse before the ones you quote.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
It is the phrase nephesh chai, living creatures which as you can see in verse 24 covers beasts of the field, livestock, and creeping things. If you look back in verses 20 & 21, it is used for sea creatures too. It is also the term in Genesis used to describe humans Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. So while we are living creatures made in God's image, we are still living creatures, like every other animal.

You might have a better understanding of what God meant in Ecc 3:18 if you read from verse 16 through 18 and upto to verse 20.


16And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.
17I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
18I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. .
19For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

I believe God shows us the similarities to us and the beasts, or animals by stating we all have one breath and ALL go to one place. All are of dust and all turn to dust again. Solomon distinguishes us from the beasts in verse 19. and do you really believe God is saying man has no preeminence above a beast? More obviously as Matthew Henry commentates:" Solomon seems to express his wish that men might perceive, that by choosing this world as their portion, they brought themselves to a level with the beasts, without being free, as they are, from present vexations and a future account. Both return to the dust from whence they were taken." There is an obvious difference, and I am sure in verse 16 and 17 you dont think the judgement spoken of is directed to the beasts or animals do you? If we are beasts or animals as you are trying to invoke, then what is God if we are created in His image and likeness? Living creature to me only means life created, it in no way categorizes us with animals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show us how we can test for supernatural cause, and we will do so.

I've only been telling you how for what, almost four years now?

Build a machine that can do this:

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

 

[FreezBee]

Build a machine that can do this:

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

A good whack to the head might just do that.

- FreezBee

 

[JGL53]

Creationists can't even give an explanatory answer to a simple question like "Did Adam and Eve have navels?"

This is why science is not taught in Sunday school. That would be whack.

 

[Assyrian]

John 10:34-36 - Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'?
If He [God] called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say...'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

Your point?

Which, according to your reasoning, makes every other animal in God's image.

Including these:

Why? Although I do agree we do see something of the creator in his handiwork Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Jesus certainly though there was something in a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings that tells us of the nature of His love.

But it doesn't follow from us being living creatures like all the other animals on the planet that it makes them God's image too, unless you think God's image is animal, whatever species. Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. It isn't looking like a bird or reptile or even a human being that is the image of God.

 

[caustic]

Build a machine that can do this:

Originally Posted by 2 Kings 6:17

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
​

I'm pretty sure LSD could do that.

 

[Split Rock]

I've only been telling you how for what, almost four years now?

Build a machine that can do this:

OK... show us how to do that. Did you think you could get away with your usual diversionary tactic?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I've only been telling you how for what, almost four years now?

Build a machine that can do this:

produce a God that can do the same.

 

[Meshach]

Show us how we can test for supernatural cause, and we will do so. Go ahead... you'll be the first creationist to explain this.

If you consider in its entirety, everything, yes everything that scientist attribute to the workings of natural selection there should be a name change to this entity. Mindless SuperNatural Selection.

In the last hundred or so years the data that has PILED up in this area is astounding. Really, I am serious, take it to the authorities and put the name change suggestion on the table. Put it through peer review. It truly is miraculous. Can't anybody else see this? And I am not being sarcastic here. Quit going about it like its just ho hum. Its an entity and force that knows exactly what to do where to do it, how to do it, why to do it, and when to do it yet it is mindless.From a single cell to every livng creature you see on the planet. The transformations are mind numbing. WOW.Get all the data available attributed to what you call natural selection and get the name changed to what it truly is . Mindless SuperNatural Selection.

I know, someone start a thread in here and title it "All things attributed to natural selection and what it has done". Then after numerous posts take the thread with all the info to those who can give it its proper name and classification.

Mindless SuperNatural Selection Got to admit, its gotta nice ring to it.