Do it without magic.

[SteveB28]

No, those people were living in their environment to the best of their ability. Science was not necessary to determine which clothing was warmest, planting corn will yield corn, and a roof on a structure will keep one dry. Science was not needed in the determination that salt improves the taste of food.

Your attempt to appropriate knowledge as science doesn't work.

Please explain how those people did work those things out for themselves.

The words convey a view of how humanity was created from an alleged single life form from long long ago. It was by a random/chance, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless process. What's not to understand?

It is neither random nor directionless.

Right. Science is rife with guesses and suppositions.

Which are rigorously tested.

I'm a teacher. My students answer their test questions by guesses and suppositions. How much progress have they made?

If they scored 97%, quite well I'd say!

Please tell me, does science teach error today as they have in the past?

Again, your question makes no sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we knew everything then we would have no need for science.

By that logic, are you saying that God, Who knows everything, created the universe sans science?

If so, I totally agree.

God did not use science to create this universe.

He used a series of one miracle after another.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be a staggeringly deceptive thing to do, wouldn't it?

No.

Especially when He documented what He did, when He did it, where He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, who the eyewitness were, and then preserved that Documentation throughout all ages for our learning.

 

[Inkfingers]

No.

Especially when He documented what He did, when He did it, where He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, who the eyewitness were, and then preserved that Documentation throughout all ages for our learning.

So why make it look 4 billion years old when it's only a few thousand years old? Is God into repro? Did he want shabby chic?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why make it look 4 billion years old when it's only a few thousand years old?

The earth looks 4.57 billion years old, because the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

And as far as "why," I'm not sure -- probably the Anthropic principle has something to do with it.

The Bible gives us a hint though, as to why you don't mix old and new together.

Luke 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
Luke 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

In addition, Peter says about the universe and the earth ...

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

And I like what Adam Clarke says here, in his footnote to Genesis 2:5 ...

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.

And the earth isn't "only a few thousand years old," as you said in your question.

It has been in existence only a few thousand years.

Thus the earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and 6000 years old existentially.

 

[Inkfingers]

The earth looks 4.57 billion years old, because the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

{snip}

Thus the earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and 6000 years old existentially.

You are actually being serious here, arn't you.

Even though that is nonsense.

Like I said, it implies that God is so impatient that he wants repro instead of genuine antique.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are actually being serious here, arn't you.

No -- it's a gag of mine, nine years running now.

Even though that is nonsense.

To whom? Peter? Adam Clarke? you?

Like I said, it implies that God is so impatient that he wants repro instead of genuine antique.

Wow -- just wow.

 

[justlookinla]

The process that I described operating over many generations.

Common descent and natural selection do not produce new life forms. They only act on an existing life form.

 

[justlookinla]

Please explain how those people did work those things out for themselves.

Trial and error. Intuition. Experiences. Sensory input.

Lots of reasons.

It is neither random nor directionless.

Explain how it's not random/chance. Goalless instead of directionless.

And I assume you're ok with mindless, meaningless and purposeless?

Which are rigorously tested.

The guesses and suppositions of humanity being the result of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago hasn't been "rigorously tested".

If they scored 97%, quite well I'd say!

Guesses don't score 97%.

Again, your question makes no sense.

Science has taught error in the past. Does science still teach error?

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[florida2]

The words convey a view of how humanity was created from an alleged single life form from long long ago. It was by a random/chance, meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless process. What's not to understand?

Why are you so hung up on this catchphrase you've invented? Let's have a look at it.

alleged single life form long long ago: have a read of the some of research about LUCA Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

random/chance: partly. Mutations are the random part. Natural selection is not random. Simples.

meaningless: why does it have to have meaning?

mindless: it just happens. A ball rolling down a slope is meaningless. Like evolution - it just happens.

purposeless: why does it have to have a purpose? How is this different from meaning?

directionless: again, it just happens. There is no 'end product' goal in evolution. Just survival and gradual change over time.

 

[justlookinla]

Why are you so hung up on this catchphrase you've invented? Let's have a look at it.

alleged single life form long long ago: have a read of the some of research about LUCA Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alleged. Guesses. Suppositions.

random/chance: partly. Mutations are the random part. Natural selection is not random. Simples.

Only one produces a new life form....mutations. All natural selection does is work on an existing life form.

meaningless: why does it have to have meaning?

Right. Atheistic Darwinist creationism teaches a worldview that humanity is a meaningless creation.

mindless: it just happens. A ball rolling down a slope is meaningless. Like evolution - it just happens.

Right. Atheistic Darwinist creationism teaches the worldview that humanity 'just happened'.

purposeless: why does it have to have a purpose? How is this different from meaning?

Right. Atheistic Darwinist creationist teaches the worldview that humanity's creation was purposeless.

QUOTE]directionless: again, it just happens. There is no 'end product' goal in evolution. Just survival and gradual change over time.[/QUOTE]

A more accurate term would be goalless, according to some. Again, the worldview of atheistic Darwinist creationism's view that humanity is just another life form, nothing special.

 

[Davian]

Ok.



Actually, the OP did not identify the impetus which created humanity....and the OP still hasn't identified the impetus which created humanity.

And neither have you.

The floor is still yours. Do you have anything else to offer other than "miracle"?

 

[justlookinla]

The floor is still yours. Do you have anything else to offer other than "miracle"?

Miracles works for me.

 

[florida2]

Alleged. Guesses. Suppositions.



Only one produces a new life form....mutations. All natural selection does is work on an existing life form.



Right. Atheistic Darwinist creationism teaches a worldview that humanity is a meaningless creation.



Right. Atheistic Darwinist creationism teaches the worldview that humanity 'just happened'.



Right. Atheistic Darwinist creationist teaches the worldview that humanity's creation was purposeless.

QUOTE]directionless: again, it just happens. There is no 'end product' goal in evolution. Just survival and gradual change over time.

A more accurate term would be goalless, according to some. Again, the worldview of atheistic Darwinist creationism's view that humanity is just another life form, nothing special.[/QUOTE]

And all of that bothers you, does it?

 

[Star Adept]

Oh man this thread is gold. (and completely worthless for anything other than arguing)

Nothing short of a time machine proves the past. It can only be inferred by extrapolation of information and methods. All information and methods are subject to new (or newly discovered) information and methods. The bible is one such source of information. Evolution is one such method. Pure faith in either one lacks humility. To progress, we need to be humble in our opinions, based on whatever evidence each of us individually so choose to have faith in.

One non-humble person asking another non-humble person to talk about anything they differ on will beget nothing but argument because each are too self-confident to change.

The beginning of all things can only be theorized. We can learn a great deal about a great many things by discussing those theories but only if we treat them all as theories.

 

[justlookinla]

A more accurate term would be goalless, according to some. Again, the worldview of atheistic Darwinist creationism's view that humanity is just another life form, nothing special.

And all of that bothers you, does it?

Well, I certainly don't agree with it. My issue is with that particular worldview being taught to our children in our schools.

 

[justlookinla]

Oh man this thread is gold. (and completely worthless for anything other than arguing)

Nothing short of a time machine proves the past. It can only be inferred by extrapolation of information and methods. All information and methods are subject to new (or newly discovered) information and methods. The bible is one such source of information. Evolution is one such method. Pure faith in either one lacks humility. To progress, we need to be humble in our opinions, based on whatever evidence each of us individually so choose to have faith in.

One non-humble person asking another non-humble person to talk about anything they differ on will beget nothing but argument because each are too self-confident to change.

The beginning of all things can only be theorized. We can learn a great deal about a great many things by discussing those theories but only if we treat them all as theories.

As I've said many times, it's all faith-based beliefs.

 

[florida2]

Well, I certainly don't agree with it.

My issue is with that particular worldview being taught to our children in our schools.

Creation by a supernatural entity isn't science. I've no problem believing whatever you want, just keep it out of the science classroom. The science classroom is a place for those things which are supported by evidence. (Before you claim that there isn't any evidence, please go and do some honest and open research - there's plenty out there).

If you want to put the supernatural into science lessons, you'll have to also include every other religion's creation stories.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You're human, just like your parents, you're not a new life form.

I'm also a primate, like my great-great-great-great ... great-great grandparents. And going even further back I'm still a placental mammal, I'm still a tetrapod, I'm still a vertebrate animal. And I'm also and still a eukaryote.

And yes, I am a new life form. I am not the same instantiation of life that either of my parents are. I can show you a picture of me standing next to my father if you'd like proof that I'm not the same organism as my dad.

-CryptoLutheran