Was it Adam or Eve that had such good long acreage between the front teeth and the eyes, like skull A?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Was it Adam or Eve that had such good long acreage between the front teeth and the eyes, like skull A?Through your understanding, do you think it possible that these were breeds of humans before the flood that descended from Adam and Eve, but we don't see them anymore because we only got the descendants of a small group of humans (Noah and his family) who were our ancestors?
And what experiments, observations or other evidence have you gathered, to contradict people who do work in lans or who do dig up the fossils that provide us with evidence?No, evolution is not real, not at all how the worlds appointed men who are called "scientists" describe it to be. Because it's stupid, is not based in reality, and does not work.
You mean, to look at the same textbooks of the same scientists that you described as "so called scientists" and stupid in the first part of your post?Figure out how a cell works, how DNA works, how proteins are formed. This did not happen by random chance. These things are more complicated and efficient than anything man can produce, and we're supposed to believe that this just fell together in place?
Adaptation is real. Evolution is not. If mankind evolved, sin is meaningless. There is no need for a saviour because animals do not sin. How can man be made in God's image if he is just a glorified ape, descended from a single cell? "Created" is not "evolved" no matter which way you try to distort the definitions.
I think adaptation is real like you've described, but not macro evolution where a cell turns into a mouse, which turns into a monkey, which turns into a human.Your last sentence seems to negate the rest of your post.
In any case, I'd like to ask if you agree with the following:
- Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
- Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
- Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
- Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
- Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
- Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
- Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?
Because that's evolution.
If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which stage exactly do you think is incorrect?
Which indeed doesn't and didn't happen. It only shows eiterI think adaptation is real like you've described, but not macro evolution where a cell turns into a mouse, which turns into a monkey, which turns into a human.
What kind of demonstration? The simple fact that you write to me and that you want to know demonstrates you have a soul.This is assuming that the soul is real. Can you demonstrate it exists?
That is not valid logic.What kind of demonstration? The simple fact that you write to me and that you want to know demonstrates you have a soul.
If you are self-aware, if you think, if you are rational, then you have a soul.
Another demonstration you have a rational soul. Animal does not write like that.That is not valid logic.
Humans are animals (and apes) by definition.Another demonstration you have a rational soul. Animal does not write like that.
Why?What kind of demonstration? The simple fact that you write to me and that you want to know demonstrates you have a soul.
If you are self-aware, if you think, if you are rational, then you have a soul.
Animals do not create definitions. Thanks for another demonstration.Humans are animals (and apes) by definition.
Animals have souls, but lower than we do.Why?
Animals are aware of their surroundings, can remember events and their behaviour is changed by their experiences... but it's commonly started that animals don't have souls.
Humans are animals, humans make definitions; ergo animals make definitions.Animals do not create definitions. Thanks for another demonstration.
I think it has everything to do with the science.Posts like this only further reaffirm that the issue creationists have with evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with their theology.
Which is all the more odd that creationists have set themselves up where they either allow for the falsification of their beliefs or require adherence to a deceptive universe.
Oh there was some that certainly points to it, it's been awhile though. Like what evidence would you need to show that there was a global flood? I think large canyons carved out of the earth by the receding running water would be one. Lots of buried remains of animals and plants as well. There is both of those. What do you think would be needed? There are legends from religions all over the world of a great flood, over 50 of them. they all have varying similarities, but there is degradation over many generations being handed down.You can’t assume it happened. Do you have supportive empirical evidence for the Noachian flood?
Thats sweet.Humans are animals, humans make definitions; ergo animals make definitions.
I think it has everything to do with the science.
But you'll have to show that all these canyons were in a single event, at the same time. The same for these buried animals; just saying "there are buried dead animals" wont make. You have to show that that happened is a single event.Oh there was some that certainly points to it, it's been awhile though. Like what evidence would you need to show that there was a global flood? I think large canyons carved out of the earth by the receding running water would be one. Lots of buried remains of animals and plants as well. There is both of those.
So it' just one big conspiracy. Yep.But do you really think that the ones in charge of the "scientific" community would support or publicize scientists who find evidence and develop hypothesis and theories in favor of a world wide flood? Their journals wouldn't get peer reviewed, and they would not be accepted as "scientists". Because the ones who run the scientific community wont call anyone a scientist unless they also believe or accept evolutionary theory.
And these scientists are very well aware of that. Probably even more aware than you. That's why there are such things as peer review and follow up experiments. That's why all science is tentative at best.I'm just trying to bring up the idea that the current most popular government supported community of scientists are not infallible (...)
That's why scientific papers contain whole lists of references to other papers. To show that what is claimed in a paper has been empirically observed.(...) and cannot be taken at their word.
But if you are a layman in a certain filed, sticking to the scientific consensus is often the safest bet.Just because something is not part of the consensus, doesn't mean it isn't true
Well I don't know about most self proclaimed christians, but I believe it has everything to do with science.It really doesn't. Especially given that most creationists have almost zero knowledge of the science they are up against.
It only really has to do with the science in that science is revealing a reality that creationists disagree with. But that comes back to creationist theological beliefs and their insistence on prescribing reality based on said beliefs.
But you'll have to show that all these canyons were in a single event, at the same time. The same for these buried animals; just saying "there are buried dead animals" wont make. You have to show that that happened is a single event.
So it' just one big conspiracy. Yep.
But if you are a layman in a certain filed, sticking to the scientific consensus is often the safest bet.
But do you really think that the ones in charge of the "scientific" community would support or publicize scientists who find evidence and develop hypothesis and theories in favor of a world wide flood? Their journals wouldn't get peer reviewed, and they would not be accepted as "scientists". Because the ones who run the scientific community wont call anyone a scientist unless they also believe or accept evolutionary theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?