Science vs. Evolution

[Archaeopteryx]

You want an amoeba turning into a starfish or something more radical like a slug turning into a skink?

I'm just asking to see how far removed your salational goalposts are from reality.

It's unsurprising. Creationists demand the most elaborate proofs and yet offer none in support of their own mythology. They seem to misunderstand how speciation works. It's as if they expect a camel to go through the eye of a needle (quite literally) and come out as an amoeba or vice versa.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's okay, because you won't get Creationism into a classroom any other way.

Then it can stay out and let the churches and homes handle it.

It's not that hard to learn.

But when voting time comes, and that school wants more money, then we'll show our "appreciation" at the polls.

In other words... contorting data to fit your pre-determined conclusions ...

I think creationists do themselves a disservice when they mess around with science.

Trying to shoehorn science into the Creation Week just ends up backfiring.

As I said before, the Creation Event has nothing to do with science, as science as we know it today didn't even exist at the time.

So yes, I think your complaint is a valid one.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then it can stay out and let the churches and homes handle it.

It's not that hard to learn.

But when voting time comes, and that school wants more money, then we'll show our "appreciation" at the polls.

Well, that's where it should be taught, in homes, Churches and private schools. When I look back on it, that's precisely how I was taught. In a Catholic primary school the Genesis account was taught as more-or-less factual (or at least, that's how the students' would interpret it). At high school it was emphasised that it is not a core belief of the Catholic Church and that it need not be taken as a literal historical account. Basically, we were taught that if we desire to believe it word-for-word then that was our choice. Biology was taught as per normal biology is. On campus the lecturer would emphasise that students need not believe in evolution, they merely need to understand it for the purposes of assessment.

 

[tanzanos]

Which came first chronologically?

AV if you want to go down that path then Judaism and Christianity come way after most creation beliefs. Thus by your own logic you have refuted their claim on creation!

Chronologically; surgery without anaesthesia preceded surgery with anaesthesia. Ignorance to microbes preceded the knowledge of their disease causing capability. etc. Ad infinitum. So you are in fact advocating we go back to the stone age!

So why are you using a computer to debate over the internet?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why did they move away from Jesus' command of adhering to the scriptures?
Why did we stop stoning to death disobedient children? (and rightly so)
Why do we help people who we know are not Christians? (and rightly so)
Why do we not put adulterers to death? (and rightly so)
Why do we not kill witches? (and rightly so)

Why do you use those examples, Tan? there are better ones.

Such as:

Why do we not sacrifice sheep and oxen today?
Why do we not keep the Passover?
Why do we not write Scripture on our doorposts?

Paul says the Old Testament laws was a "schoolmaster" to bring us to a certain point in time.

Let me quote him for you:

Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

In other words, what he is saying here is that the dispensation of the Law ended with Jesus Christ, and now we live under a new dispensation (Grace), under a new covenant.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

When the veil of the Temple was rent in two -- from the top to the botton -- the Dispensation of Law officially ended and the Dispensation of Grace officially started.

The Dispensation of Grace will end officially at Armageddon, and the Dispensation of the Kingdom will begin.

 

[interested in life]

Yes, the prefrontal cortex is probably a recent evolution, but it is present in some animals (see here).
It just so happens it is particularly prominent in human animals and occupies far more space in our brains than in the brains of closely related species.

Here is a nice little article:
Prefrontal cortex white matter volume sets humans apart

The difficulty, I spoke of earlier, in assessing prefrontal cortex size in our ancestors comes from the fact that the brain is composed entirely of soft tissue, which inexorably decays. As a consequence we cannot directly access the brains of our ancestors. We can only infer from relative differences in the cranium.

I see.So you are inferring human like intelligence in animals based on cranial size,where ive pointed out that in actual fact chimpanzees and so forth have a bigger head to body ratio..Ive pointed out cranial capacity isnt a guarantee of increased intelligence.Compare stephen hawkings cranium with someone like andre the giant.This cant be falsified in our ancestors because we have no idea what their brains actually looked like
.How can we prove the theory that monkeys grew smarter without soft tissue to study?
We cant.Best to just go with the flow and not ask questions like this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, that's where it should be taught, in homes, Churches and private schools. When I look back on it, that's precisely how I was taught. In a Catholic primary school the Genesis account was taught as more-or-less factual (or at least, that's how the students' would interpret it). At high school it was emphasised that it is not a core belief of the Catholic Church and that it need not be taken as a literal historical account. Basically, we were taught that if we desire to believe it word-for-word then that was our choice. Biology was taught as per normal biology is. On campus the lecturer would emphasise that students need not believe in evolution, they merely need to understand it for the purposes of assessment.

Did anyone in academia tell you you were brain-dead for believing it?

If not, what is your assessment of these "scientists" on here who do?

Aren't you glad they aren't in the teaching profession?

 

[interested in life]

AV if you want to go down that path then Judaism and Christianity come way after most creation beliefs. Thus by your own logic you have refuted their claim on creation!

Chronologically; surgery without anaesthesia preceded surgery with anaesthesia. Ignorance to microbes preceded the knowledge of their disease causing capability. etc. Ad infinitum. So you are in fact advocating we go back to the stone age!

So why are you using a computer to debate over the internet?

Using a computer has nothing to do with your guys mythology.Im not sure what technological avancements have to do with your guys hope in monkey magic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Did anyone in academia tell you you were brain-dead for believing it?

If not, what is your assessment of these "scientists" on here who do?

Aren't you glad they aren't in the teaching profession?

Believing what? Creation or evolution? In either case, neither.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV if you want to go down that path then Judaism and Christianity come way after most creation beliefs. Thus by your own logic you have refuted their claim on creation!

Chronologically; surgery without anaesthesia preceded surgery with anaesthesia. Ignorance to microbes preceded the knowledge of their disease causing capability. etc. Ad infinitum. So you are in fact advocating we go back to the stone age!

So why are you using a computer to debate over the internet?

Again, you're equating the Creation Event with science, and it's only confusing you.

 

[Cabal]

Using a computer has nothing to do with your guys mythology.Im not sure what technological avancements have to do with your guys hope in monkey magic.

Wrong. Same methodology was used to establish both.

 

[tanzanos]

Paul says the Old Testament laws was a "schoolmaster" to bring us to a certain point in time.

Let me quote him for you:

Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

In other words, what he is saying here is that the dispensation of the Law ended with Jesus Christ, and now we live under a new dispensation (Grace), under a new covenant.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

When the veil of the Temple was rent in two -- from the top to the botton -- the Dispensation of Law officially ended and the Dispensation of Grace officially started.

The Dispensation of Grace will end officially at Armageddon, and the Dispensation of the Kingdom will begin.

So Paul is above Jesus?????

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21)
Notice the:"...till heaven and earth pass away..."? So far as I know the earth is still here, and thus we are bound to obey the OT!

 

[Cabal]

So Paul is above Jesus?????

But, Jesus came first?!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I see.So you are inferring human like intelligence in animals based on cranial size,where ive pointed out that in actual fact chimpanzees and so forth have a bigger head to body ratio..Ive pointed out cranial capacity isnt a guarantee of increased intelligence.Compare stephen hawkings cranium with someone like andre the giant.This cant be falsified in our ancestors because we have no idea what their brains actually looked like
.How can we prove the theory that monkeys grew smarter without soft tissue to study?
We cant.Best to just go with the flow and not ask questions like this.

I'm not understanding the point you're trying to put forward here. You did point out that cranial capacity isn't a guarantee of increasing intelligence, but neocortical volume is. In fact, neocortical volume is what matters when it comes to most of the characteristics we regard as fundamentally 'human'. Using Dunbar's equation and data on the size of networks in early hominids we can calculate their relative neocortical volume without actually accessing their physical (now, long decayed) brains. When we combine this with data on cranial capacity we can calculate the ratio of neocortex to sub-cortical cerebrum in early hominids.

 

[tanzanos]

Using a computer has nothing to do with your guys mythology.Im not sure what technological avancements have to do with your guys hope in monkey magic.

I really need to stress the fact that you cannot judge something you have no idea on how it works nor what it does. You seem to lack totally any knowledge of anything scientific.

 

[interested in life]

Again, you're equating the Creation Event with science, and it's only confusing you.

Im surprised hes been on this site a long time and hasnt studied the mosaic law or even gotten an idea of it.The regulations set out regarding hygiene were far ahead of its time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Believing what? Creation or evolution? In either case, neither.

Art, I'll ask you again.

You gave me three scenarios from your background:

1. The Catholic Church taught creationism as fact.
2. High school said it was your choice to believe it.
3. Your biology lecturer said you need not believe it.

... and in none were you told you were brain dead?

So where did these guys learn to mock us like they do?

 

[interested in life]

I really need to stress the fact that you cannot judge something you have no idea on how it works nor what it does. You seem to lack totally any knowledge of anything scientific.

you ignored my scientific posts.Why did you focus on a flippant remark and ignore my previous posts?

 

[tanzanos]

I'm not understanding the point you're trying to put forward here. You did point out that cranial capacity isn't a guarantee of increasing intelligence, but neocortical volume is. In fact, neocortical volume is what matters when it comes to most of the characteristics we regard as fundamentally 'human'. Using Dunbar's equation and data on the size of networks in early hominids we can calculate their relative neocortical volume without actually accessing their physical (now, long decayed) brains. When we combine this with data on cranial capacity we can calculate the ratio of neocortex to sub-cortical cerebrum in early hominids.

Exactly; Just like I can calculate an engines power output simply by having the crankshaft, pistons and cylinder head. My calculations will not be far off the mark.

 

[Cabal]

So where did these guys learn to mock us like they do?

Don't worry Art, there was nothing wrong with your answer.

It just won't satisfy some because they have an obvious and fairly feeble prejudice against the notion of science and don't like it when reality fails to match up to their expectations.

Of course, if it weren't for science, these people wouldn't have such an effective means to air their views to begin with, but such is life.