The Creationist Corner

[joshua 1 9]

I think you run into a problem here, if you're going to use the archaeological evidence of civilisation in Mesopotamia in around 6,000 BCE as evidence of the veracity of the Garden of Eden and a Biblical account of humankind coming in to being at the same time - you have to ignore the archaeological evidence of human habitation of the area prior to that time.

The first human artifacts go back about 40,000 years. They find fishing hooks, fishing nets & sowing needles. In order for people to come up out of Africa they need to be able to make clothing and they needed food to eat. 20,000 years ago you will find grinding stones that they used to grind their grains. Also they were able to weave baskets to store many different kinds of grains in. We have NO artifacts for Eden, we are looking at the history of Agriculture. We are looking at the domestication of wild plants and animals. Science knows a lot about all of this. They know how farming and civilization spread from the Furtile Crescent to the rest of the world. WE know that there were at least 18 Edens in the world. There was one in China in the Yellow River area. This is where rice came from. In the Middle east they had grains like wheat and barley. They made bread in the middle east they made noodles in China.

Science knows a lot more now then what they knew back at the time of Bishop Ussher. Yet his book is still accurate and true today if you were to read it (on line). Also the Bible continue to be accurate and true today. NO new knowledge has surfaced that contradicts the Bible in any way. OF COURSE our understanding of the Bible has changed. Science helps us to have a much better understanding then what we had before. Just as Daniel tells us the wisdom, knowledge and understanding will increase at the end of this age. People will go to and fro, they will travel a lot at the end of this age. All of this helps us to understand the Bible better then we were able to understand. God put a record into creation. He left us dinosaur bones so we could study and see the work He was doing when He created this world. God has left us the natural record and he has left us the Bible to show us what HE does in the spiritual.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The two creation myths in the Bible don't even agree with each other, let alone with science.

If something is a myth then we handle it in a different way. The Bible is not a myth and we do not handle it as a myth. There is no contradiction between Gen 1 & Gen 2. In Deu 32:7 Moses says: "Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you." Gen 1 is a record of the "days of old". Gen 2 talks about: "generations long past". I happen to be a dispensationalist so for me a day is 1000 years and I am better able to explain that. If your looking for a OEC perspective then I would recommend Schroeder. He is much better educated then I am so he can better explain that for you.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

 

[joshua 1 9]

You're overlooking a doctrine known as diabolical mimicry.

Evolution mimicry theory poses more questions than it answers.
The enemy does like to throw a monkey wrench into confuse people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You're overlooking a doctrine known as diabolical mimicry.

I'm not overlooking it. I'm dismissing it as I believe one of the fundamental assumptions upon which it is reliant is false. If you want me to accept the reasoning (which I'm willing to do, given a cogent argument), you will first have to establish to my satisfaction that Satan exists. Then we can get on to whether or not the reasoning supports the conclusion.

I'm not misunderstanding your argument. I understand it completely. I just think that it's built on at least one faulty assumption, and I'm not sure that the reasoning would hold up even if I were to accept all the initial assumptions upon which it is reliant.

So say the texts.

....which is exactly what the believers in those texts would say about your text. So that is not effective as a counter-argument, as it relies on the assumption that your text is the text which is true and is, therefore, assuming the consequent again.

Did I say one word about a hummingbird?

That is the subject of this thread, and this conversation between us specifically started with you replying to a post of mine that was about the argument about the hummingbird put forth and discussed in this thread.

So if you're now contending that you have at no point intended to reference the discussion around the hummingbird, then I have to question why you replied to the post you did in the manner that you did, rather than either not replying to it, or by replying to it with something that was relevant to it.

You mean like science validating science?

Can you elucidate what you're saying, here? I may have a reply to this but, in truth, at the moment, I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say.

Right or wrong isn't relevant to you?

Whether a conclusion is right or wrong isn't necessarily relevant to whether the reasoning used to reach that conclusion is sound. Again, perhaps I've been unclear, so allow me to explain what I mean in more detail.

Let's say that there is a woman called Alice. Alice has lived in the Arctic her entire life. She has never had access to books, electricity, pictures, or any source of information that tells her anything about the outside world, with one exception. An explorer called Bob once met Alice while he was exploring the Arctic. By an unbelievable coincidence they spoke the same language. The only two pieces of information that Alice got from Bob during their encounter was that a plant called "grass" existed, and that rather than eating just fish as Alice does, people from outside the Arctic eat plants.

Alice had long been of the opinion that, as she has brown eyes, her eyes were that colour because of the brown fish that she eats. Bob has green eyes, which Alice also thinks is down to his diet.

So, Alice's full chain of reasoning is this:

1) People's eye colour is determined by their diet.
2) Bob has green eyes.
3) Bob eats plants.
4) Grass is a plant.

And the conclusion she has come to is that grass is green.

She's right in her conclusion. Grass is, indeed, green (for the most part). But that doesn't mean that her reasoning is right. It doesn't mean that Bob having green eyes is evidence that grass is green.

So now I hope you can see that even if your conclusion is correct, that doesn't mean that your reasoning is sound.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The first human artifacts go back about 40,000 years. They find fishing hooks, fishing nets & sowing needles. In order for people to come up out of Africa they need to be able to make clothing and then needed food to eat. 20,000 years ago you will find stone that they used to grind their grains. Also they were able to weave baskets to store many different kinds of grains in. We have NO artifacts for Eden, we are looking at the history of Agriculture. We are looking at the domestication of wild plants and animals. Science knows a lot about all of this. They know how farming and civilization spread from the Furtile Crescent to the rest of the world. WE know that there were at least 18 Edens in the world. There was one in China in the Yellow River area. This is where rice came from. In the Middle east they had grains like wheat and barley. They made bread in the middle east they made noodles in China.

Science knows a lot more now then what they knew back at the time of Bishop Ussher. Yet his book is still accurate and true today if you were to read it (on line). Also the Bible continue to be accurate and true today. NO new knowledge has surfaced that contradicts the Bible in any way. OF COURSE our understanding of the Bible has changed. Science helps us to have a much better understanding then what we had before. Just as Daniel tells us the wisdom, knowledge and understanding will increase at the end of this age. People will go to and fro, they will travel a lot at the end of this age. All of this helps us to understand the Bible better then we were able to understand. God put a record into creation. He left us dinosaur bones so we could study and see the work He was doing when He created this world. God has left us the natural record and he has left us the Bible to show us what HE does in the spiritual.

None of this seems to address any of the points I made.

If something is a myth then we handle it in a different way. The Bible is not a myth and we do not handle it as a myth. There is no contradiction between Gen 1 & Gen 2. In Deu 32:7 Moses says: "Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you." Gen 1 is a record of the "days of old". Gen 2 talks about: "generations long past". I happen to be a dispensationalist so for me a day is 1000 years and I am better able to explain that. If your looking for a OEC perspective then I would recommend Schroeder. He is much better educated then I am so he can better explain that for you.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

I'm not concerned with the definition of "day". I am concerned with the order of creation being different between the two accounts, and neither being accurate according to current scientific knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution mimicry theory poses more questions than it answers.

That's why it's nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Just draw a line from one species to another and call everything inbetween a "missing link."

 

[AV1611VET]

So now I hope you can see that even if your conclusion is correct, that doesn't mean that your reasoning is sound.

Are you, or do you know, Skavau?

 

[joshua 1 9]

you will first have to establish to my satisfaction that Satan exists.

Satan represents evil. Now you can tell me what you think is evil. I can tell you want I think evil is. Either way evil in the world exists. If you want to personify evil as a fallen angel that is now a demon that is optional. What you can not do is remove the concept of evil. If you did then you would not have love. In order to have love you have to have free will. In order to have free will you have to have evil. There maybe only a small minute amount but if you remove evil then you will remove love and you will remove free will.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That's why it's nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Just draw a line from one species to another and call everything inbetween a "missing link."

If they found the missing link then it would not be missing anymore.
Still after 100 years they are still looking and it is still missing.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

3For if you cry for discernment, Lift your voice for understanding; 4If you seek her as silver And search for her as for hidden treasures;5Then you will discern the fear of the LORD And discover the knowledge of God.…

 

[joshua 1 9]

None of this seems to address any of the points I made.

Translation for the lurkers: He tried to trap me with his question and he failed to accomplish his objective.

 

[AV1611VET]

If they found the missing link then it would not be missing anymore.

They've already stated that, even if there were no fossils at all, evolution would still stand on its own merits.

That says it all, in my opinion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are you, or do you know, Skavau?

I had never heard of him before your post. A bit of googling turns up a twitter feed (I'm unsure about the protocol for posting links to material that some on this site might find offensive, so I won't link, but I'm sure any interested parties can use google for themselves). I've not wasted enough time to see how much, if anything, I have in common with him, but I will happily outline some differences between him and me: I'm not a metalhead (although Babymetal are good fun, and I'm not the kind of person to write off an entire genre - it's just that given the choice I'd rather listen to something other than metal); I would classify myself as an atheist, rather than an anti-theist (I think that people are free to believe what they want, although I'm certainly not afraid to challenge beliefs that I find to be unfounded or unreasonable); and I would be frankly offended that someone thought I had any sympathy for the pathetic "GamerGate" movement, had I enough of a posting history on this site to expect anybody here to know anything about me.

So, no. Not me, not someone I'd heard of, and from the little I've seen, not someone I'd want to hitch my wagon to.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Satan represents evil.

Many things can represent evil. The conversation I was having was concerning a literal being who, as far as I can ascertain the reasoning presented, deliberately created all evidence that doesn't point towards God. A metaphor for evil is not the same thing.

Now you can tell me what you think is evil.

I'm not convinced that the concept is of much value.

In order to have free will you have to have evil.

I don't see why this must be true. But perhaps this is verging on becoming a semantic argument, and I'm not sure there's much to be gained from one of those.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If they found the missing link then it would not be missing anymore.
Still after 100 years they are still looking and it is still missing.

The idea of a missing link is something of a red herring. Partly this is because fossils which come between two extant species have been found many times, but every time this happens those who seek to discredit evolution just ask for a new "missing link" between that fossil and the two species either side.

But, perhaps the bigger reason, is that everything is a transitional form. Every fossil ever discovered is a "missing link".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Translation for the lurkers: He tried to trap me with his question and he failed to accomplish his objective.

This is unfair. You mentioned the archaeological evidence of civilisation beginning 6,000 years ago, while also saying that Adam and Eve were the first humans to exist 6,000 years ago. I asked how you reconciled the archaeological evidence of human existence from earlier than 6,000 years ago with the belief that humans didn't exist before 6,000 years ago. You replied by mentioning some of the archaeological evidence that humans existed earlier than 6,000 years ago, but didn't answer how you reconciled that evidence with your stated belief in Adam and Eve.

I said that your post didn't address my points because you didn't actually address the points that I made. You still haven't.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They've already stated that, even if there were no fossils at all, evolution would still stand on its own merits.

That says it all, in my opinion.

What it says is that there is an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence, so that even if one entire line of evidence were non-existent, there would still be enough evidence to make it the theory that best explains the available data.

This is assuming that this nebulous "they" you mention actually did make that statement. Can you provide a citation? I would genuinely like to read it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Oh, and they can demonstrate that genetic complexity can increase.

I note that your post didn't include any specific examples of new traits evolving from animals that previously had no such traits. That's because there are none. Irradiating fruit flies was supposed to force increasing complexity in the fruit flies. What did it get? Messed up fruit flies. Although repeated many times over the years, forcing genetic mutations has never resulted in the result that you claim must be the driving force of biology. The problem you have with evolution is that it doesn't happen, has never happened, and cannot happen. It's nothing more than "must have" being passed off as science.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I note that your post didn't include any specific examples of new traits evolving from animals that previously had no such traits. That's because there are none.

This is probably the most famous example

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

[...]

[...]sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, no.

Alright.

Was just being nosey.

Sounds like you do your homework.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you provide a citation?

483