-
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.
Proof of Creation?
- Thread starter kaytikookie
- Start date
Yes, you did say they shouldn't exist. You said that there shouldn't be a combination of fowl and creeping things. You said that there shouldn't be a combination of water and land animals. Remember this?
"God obviously made fowl separate from beasts of the earth and creeping
things and man and whales and fish. So why would we predict a mammal-
bird?"--EternalDragon
If there are dinosaur-birds, why not mammal-birds? Are you saying that mammals and birds had separate designers?
Is a wolf fully formed, or is it not fully formed because it does not have the features of a chihuahua?
How do you determine if a species is fully formed, and that it just showed up?
Upvote
0
Why 'one'? If there were multiple intelligent designers working together, what would be the difference?
What would a 'half-formed' organism even look like?
By the way, I'm still curious, so I'll ask again - were you indicating before that you would accept that frogs and salamanders share a common ancestor? That they're the same 'kind'?
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
We should see life just appearing in the fossil record fully formed.
That is what we find. We should find irreducible complexity in biological
organisms and biological machinery. That is exactly what we find.
When we look deeper and deeper into what makes life we should find
more and more complexity. That is exactly what we find.
Upvote
0
What criteria do you use to determine if a fossil "just appears"?
What criteria do you use to determine if a fossil is "fully formed"?
We should find that with evolution as well.
That is also what we should find if evolution is true. A modern bacteria is the end product of billions of years of evolution, so it should be complex.
Upvote
0
Also, while I'm feeling frisky, I might as well through some more evidence your way to ignore.
You might notice that, when you put a small enough object in an infants hands it grasps it. That's called the palmer grasp reflex. Some infants are even capable of supporting their own weight like this.They try to do the same thing with their feet, too. The reflex disappears in a few months.
Now, if humans had long enough fur, this would make sense. A baby could grab on to grip points and support itself while his mother moved around. If human beings were made in their current form, though, what's the purpose of the palmar grasp reflex? Human babies don't have anything they need to grab on to that strongly, certainly not with their toes. It serves no actual function, and it disappears in a few months. Why would an intelligent designer put this in?
You might notice that, when you put a small enough object in an infants hands it grasps it. That's called the palmer grasp reflex. Some infants are even capable of supporting their own weight like this.They try to do the same thing with their feet, too. The reflex disappears in a few months.
Now, if humans had long enough fur, this would make sense. A baby could grab on to grip points and support itself while his mother moved around. If human beings were made in their current form, though, what's the purpose of the palmar grasp reflex? Human babies don't have anything they need to grab on to that strongly, certainly not with their toes. It serves no actual function, and it disappears in a few months. Why would an intelligent designer put this in?
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
You would have to first provide evidence that the bacteria is indeed
the product of "billions" of years of evolution. Real evidence that I should
be able to observe, test and repeat.
Upvote
0
Evidence presented, evidence ignored. You say we all have the same evidence, but you'll dismiss it the moment you don't have an explanation.
Why do humans have primate behaviours if we were never primates? Why do human babies have a grasp reflex that serves no actual purpose for them, but would if their mothers had long enough fur? Why do they do that with their toes, too, which can't even grasp anything? Why does it just go away after a while?
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
Babies have a lot of useful reflexes. And their feet do not really grasp
with the Babinski reflex. Reflexes help the baby to learn things when they
are very young.
If the grasp reflex serves no purpose then why do we grasp things? You
have grasped a baseball before haven't you? A fork? A ladder rung?
Upvote
0
It would if their feet were built like other apes.
The reflex goes away in a few months. They can't learn anything from it.
An adult grasps things because we use tools. A human baby doesn't need to grasp anything, and they certainly don't need to do so strong enough to support their own body weight. It serves no purpose for a baby, and it disappears in a few months. So why build humans with this feature?
Also, before you let it get away again, were you indicating before that you accept that frogs and salamanders share a commnon ancestry? That they're the same kind?
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
To learn how to grasp things. (That is another interesting word in the
dictionary).
It could very well be. I tend to keep an open mind and not jump to
conclusions like thinking the grasping reflex in a baby is some left
over trait from an animal.
Upvote
0
Again, the reflex goes away in a few months, and it's something they do without thinking. There's nothing to learn from it.
Humans are animals, and that's not jumping to conclusion. You haven't provided any other conclusion.
So if frogs and salamanders can share a common ancestry when the only thing that connects them is that they're both amphibians, how can you reject any other evolution? Theropod dinosaurs and birds have more in common than a frog and a salamander, so why can't they be related?
If frogs and salamanders are the same kind, what ISN'T the same kind? Dogs and bears? Cats and bears? Snakes and crocodiles? Penguins and ostriches? Scorpions and spiders?
Also, there are over four thousand species of frogs and over 600 species of salamanders. They come in all shapes and sizes. How, exactly, would we get that much speciation in only a few thousand years?
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
Without using similarities, demonstrate that this is not a human.
It is clearly not human.
Upvote
0
I am talking about the criteria that you use on the data collected by your five senses. What are they?
Upvote
0
Hi,
About fifteen years ago, I a scientist of sorts, finished the first part of my work on the Bible. That was not my usual line of work, but I used pure research methods to look at that book. In short is passed more than well, it is divine. But, I did not know that then.
Let me go on. I finished the first part of my work on that. I had two findings and sent them off to everyone local that I knew. Eventually there were two comments on my work. I looked at both of them and then went onwards.
In my findings I found two possible provable errors. One is the age of Adam, and the other was the dating of Noah's Ark. Please continue to remember that, the outcome is good. That is a Divine book. In dating of Adam, yes I did the work myself, and I used the Bilble and spent time to find out Biblically when Adam was born, if the begets and begats were direct father son relationships and if all of the sequences were there with no gaps. As I was new to this work, it is forgivable to make mistakes, but not to hold on to them.
If I use only the begets and begats and have no reason to think there are gaps, (not true, but a newbie can make this error easily), Adam was made in 5000 BC, and Noah's Ark happened in 2700 BC or so.
The next step in all research work, when it is advanced, meaning no one else has ever done this before that you know of, the first results are presented casually to see if anyone can find an error in your work. Two came up as I mentioned. The second responder responded with paperwork and data.
I was informed rather nicely that begets and begats are not always father son relationships. I was informed of gaps. I was also informed of strata assmptions in sedimentary dating, making it harder to know for sure about some, not all dating. All sedimentary work depends upon a still water condition, and the oceans actually have currents now.
In any event, I was shown that the only two items in 8, eight years of research that I could prove wrong (The research method chosen for this work), were in fact plausibly true. Therefore I had no proof.
The next step is I looked to see if anyone else has proven this book wrong historically. No one has.
Yes, eventually I proved it right and therefore God is Real, however that is off the new earth old earth controversy. And, why if the universe is 15 Billion years old, and the earth is at least 3 Billion years old, why that is important seems to be it threatens some peoples ideas of God.
Let me go on. After the controlled experiments were done. The summary of the results is The Bible is Real. Since it talks about God, therefore God is Real.
Your God also added something to my knowledge after the above work was done. He added proof like in "Close encounters of the God kind" to pretty much make it more than impossible to not remember the previous work.
The point maybe is not whether God did the work in 5 Billionths of a second, or 13 Billeion years or so, but whether God did the work? And science commanded by God, in Genesis with the blessing of subdue the earth says it is an old earth.
A real definition for science commanded by God in Genesis, is to find out what God did.
...Katerina/C.
About fifteen years ago, I a scientist of sorts, finished the first part of my work on the Bible. That was not my usual line of work, but I used pure research methods to look at that book. In short is passed more than well, it is divine. But, I did not know that then.
Let me go on. I finished the first part of my work on that. I had two findings and sent them off to everyone local that I knew. Eventually there were two comments on my work. I looked at both of them and then went onwards.
In my findings I found two possible provable errors. One is the age of Adam, and the other was the dating of Noah's Ark. Please continue to remember that, the outcome is good. That is a Divine book. In dating of Adam, yes I did the work myself, and I used the Bilble and spent time to find out Biblically when Adam was born, if the begets and begats were direct father son relationships and if all of the sequences were there with no gaps. As I was new to this work, it is forgivable to make mistakes, but not to hold on to them.
If I use only the begets and begats and have no reason to think there are gaps, (not true, but a newbie can make this error easily), Adam was made in 5000 BC, and Noah's Ark happened in 2700 BC or so.
The next step in all research work, when it is advanced, meaning no one else has ever done this before that you know of, the first results are presented casually to see if anyone can find an error in your work. Two came up as I mentioned. The second responder responded with paperwork and data.
I was informed rather nicely that begets and begats are not always father son relationships. I was informed of gaps. I was also informed of strata assmptions in sedimentary dating, making it harder to know for sure about some, not all dating. All sedimentary work depends upon a still water condition, and the oceans actually have currents now.
In any event, I was shown that the only two items in 8, eight years of research that I could prove wrong (The research method chosen for this work), were in fact plausibly true. Therefore I had no proof.
The next step is I looked to see if anyone else has proven this book wrong historically. No one has.
Yes, eventually I proved it right and therefore God is Real, however that is off the new earth old earth controversy. And, why if the universe is 15 Billion years old, and the earth is at least 3 Billion years old, why that is important seems to be it threatens some peoples ideas of God.
Let me go on. After the controlled experiments were done. The summary of the results is The Bible is Real. Since it talks about God, therefore God is Real.
Your God also added something to my knowledge after the above work was done. He added proof like in "Close encounters of the God kind" to pretty much make it more than impossible to not remember the previous work.
The point maybe is not whether God did the work in 5 Billionths of a second, or 13 Billeion years or so, but whether God did the work? And science commanded by God, in Genesis with the blessing of subdue the earth says it is an old earth.
A real definition for science commanded by God in Genesis, is to find out what God did.
...Katerina/C.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
