Early Man

[webboffin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
We don't exactly know; though, we do know that it was a prokaryotic cell. 

Well, I think that is stretching a guess more than certainty. Maybe I am at least in science aspect wrong.

 

[Noddingdog]

Jerry Smith,
Geological evidence does support a literal interpretation of the Bible and Genesis. The evidence collected supports strongly Creation rather than evolution, and I am sure that many PE teachers would like to have us believe that this is not so and so continue deceiving the world. From the outside, evolution appears to be correct, but when a deeper approach is taken, it's true flaws and fallacies are exposed. It is not advisable to claim that Creation has no evidence and evolution is universally supported without giving SEVERAL justifiable arguments that support your claim.
Noddingdog

 

[chickenman]

hahaha, nodding dog

geologists are nearly unanimous on the fact that the world is much older than 6000 years old

but then, what would a geologist know?

 

[bigat]

Science will do whatever it takes to deny that there is a God.  Science wants to be the "god".  Science wants the control.  They can have it.  Time will tell. 


I'll be in my corner. 

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by bigat
Science will do whatever it takes to deny that there is a God.  Science wants to be the "god".  Science wants the control.  They can have it.  Time will tell. 


I'll be in my corner. 

Science makes no comment on whether God exists or not and most scientists in the west are Christians.

Your claim that science will do whatever it takes to deny that there is a God thus seems to me to be a little odd.

How do you explain that?

 

[chickenman]

I hope you aren't going to take your computer into your corner with you, that'd be kind of hypocritical

 

[bigat]

Originally posted by chickenman
I hope you aren't going to take your computer into your corner with you, that'd be kind of hypocritical

Uh....what? 

 

Back to my corner.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by chickenman
geologists are nearly unanimous on the fact that the world is much older than 6000 years old 

About 100 years ago, they replaced the YEC with what they call the Gap theory. According to this theory, before the end of the ice age, all life on Earth became extinct. God then started all over again, about 12,000 years ago.

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by bigat
Uh....what? 

 

Back to my corner.

I think the point that was being made was that you seem to have no problem using the things that science gives you yet at the same time condemn it as anti-God. It seems a little ... hypocritical.

 

[chickenman]

I don't think geologists subscribe to the gap theory either john,

consensus is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, numerous dating methods and numerous different samples caused them to arrive at that conclusion

 

[bigat]

Oh geez...you kids are reaching.

Wait...my computer is evolving......into...a microwave! Sweet!


Off to my corner...with my microwave.

 

[chickenman]

the point is that science used the same methods to discover semi-conductors and transistors as it did to develop and validate the theory of evolution

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
Jerry Smith,
Geological evidence does support a literal interpretation of the Bible and Genesis. The evidence collected supports strongly Creation rather than evolution, and I am sure that many PE teachers would like to have us believe that this is not so and so continue deceiving the world. From the outside, evolution appears to be correct, but when a deeper approach is taken, it's true flaws and fallacies are exposed.

Well, Nodding, I just don't know what to say. Let me repeat what I said before. The presence of the geologic column refutes the central claim of creationism, that all life was created in its current form, at about the same time. If that central claim was true, then we would find fossils of similar organisms no matter what rock we were digging in. Instead, we find more primitive organisms in older rock and more modern ones in younger rock. From this standpoint, special creation as a testable theory is falsified, and we need not say much more about it.

You say that you know how to expose true flaws and fallacies in evolution by looking more closely at the evidence. I invite you to do so. Arikay started a new thread here that is full of evidence for you to look more closely at and show us the flaws. It is the same set of posts I pointed you to before, but now all together for easier viewing.

You said:

It is not advisable to claim that Creation has no evidence and evolution is universally supported without giving SEVERAL justifiable arguments that support your claim.

I have given SEVERAL. And strong ones, at that. But you have given no evidence that evolution is false, or that creationism is true.

By the way, I make no claim with regards to Creation - only creationism. Creation is the doctrine that God created the universe, and everything in it, including us. That is a religious belief and can neither be confirmed nor falsified by science. Creationism is the claim that He created all of life in more or less its current form at about the same time. That is a scientific claim and is readily falsified, by merely looking at the fossil record.

Creation can be true just as easily if evolution is true as if creationism is true. Or it can be false just as easily. That is why it is considered a position of faith, not science. 

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by bigat
Oh geez...you kids are reaching.

Wait...my computer is evolving......into...a microwave! Sweet!


Off to my corner...with my microwave.

You have accused science of trying to disprove and supplant God. Why would you then choose to use anything that science produces? Surely by doing so you are supporting them - monetarily at least?

It just seems odd.

I also would like you to back up your claim. Most scientists in the west are Christians. Many evolutionists are Christians also, if you want to single that field out.

In addition, science does not comment on the existence of God; instead, science addresses the claims people make about the world, which may include claims about the nature of God.

For example, if it was claimed that God turned me blue on Tuesdays, it would be possible to test that and disprove it. That would not disprove that God existed - it would simply disprove the claim that he turned me blue on Tuesdays.

 

[Noddingdog]

Jerry Smith
Evolutionists would have us think that you find young in modern and old in old... but do we? Nope. That's that.
Evidence For Creation - Should there be a lack of creation evidence on this forum, may I suggest you direct your web browser to http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html. Should you need me to post this evidence, please reply.
I will, as I have said, reply to your supposed evidence shortly.
Yours,
ND

 

[notto]

Noddingdog,

Can you point out one specific piece of evidence that we find in the geologic column that is inconsistent with Evolutionary theory and can only be described by a Young Earth theory?

This is what you need to do in order to falsify evolution (or mainstream geology).

This is why special creation and YEC has been falsified. There are many pieces of evidence that cannot be incorporated into a young earth model.

It doesn't matter how much evidence you have to support your theory if there exists evidence that falsifies it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Evolutionists would have us think that you find young in modern and old in old... but do we? Nope. That's that.

Actually, we do. Whoever is telling you differently is misleading you. If you ask them for their counterexamples, you will find that they cannot provide any that are sound. If they provide any at all, you may post their examples here & we will show you why they are unsound. Bear in mind that there are millions of fossils that have been un-earthed and the best they will ever do is present a dozen of highly questionable provenance to counter the mass of the evidence.

 

[webboffin]

Well, yes of course the Earth is older than 12,000 years. The Earth rescources of oil and coal and the tectonic movement of the continents show that the Earth is older than a poxy 12,000 years.  Don't be wound up by the claims. I am sure some are having a giggle. The Gap theory seems a desperation theory more than a scientific/creationist one and not in the realms of biblical information. But this thread is really about mankind and it's "creation". [Note I have questions previously posted]

 

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by webboffin
Thank you, so you are really saying that man is regarded as a primate not necessarily due to exclusive DNA links to apes like creatures but more physical anatomical similarities.
I can accept that.

I'm curious why you'd accept morphological similarities but not genetic similarities.

Well, I think that is stretching a guess more than certainty. Maybe I am at least in science aspect wrong.

It's not a guess at all. Single celled lifeforms predate multicellur ones in the fossil record for example. Eukaryotes are the result are a mosaic of prokaryotes. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I suggest that you browse this following site: Fossilmuseum - Tree of Life.

Even if we don't know the actual recent common ancestor of all lifeforms, we can still identify characteristics that it had. This is true of all recent common ancestors. For example although I don't know who is yours and mine recent common ancestor, I do know that it was a human, probably a British human (assuming you are British).

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I'm curious why you'd accept morphological similarities but not genetic similarities.

Easily yes   Same as vertibrates and invertibrates are not all same species. Please don't begin another t*t for tat conflict RufusAtticus