The Fossils for Human Evolution

AV1611VET · Jun 16, 2021

Ophiolite said:
The bottom line is that, even if the current theory of evolution were wrong, that does not mean the Creationist explanation is correct.

My current opinion is that Creationism won't be declared "correct" until Jesus himself returns and convinces the naysayers otherwise.

How that will happen, I don't know, but I assume it will be by either taking them back in time to the Creation Week, or giving some kind of "PowerPoint" presentation, much like Satan gave on the mountain.

But the point is, in the meantime, as you just demonstrated, academia is already claiming the Creationist explanation can still take a hike, even if current theories are shown to be wrong.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2021

AV1611VET said:
My current opinion is that Creationism won't be declared "correct" until Jesus himself returns and convinces the naysayers otherwise.

How that will happen, I don't know, but I assume it will be by either taking them back in time to the Creation Week, or giving some kind of "PowerPoint" presentation, much like Satan gave on the mountain.

But the point is, in the meantime, as you just demonstrated, academia is already claiming the Creationist explanation can still take a hike, even if current theories are shown to be wrong.

Except that current theories haven't been shown to be wrong.

AV1611VET · Jun 16, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Except that current theories haven't been shown to be wrong.

I was using his words:

Ophiolite said:
The bottom line is that, even if the current theory of evolution were wrong, that does not mean the Creationist explanation is correct.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2021

AV1611VET said:
I was using his words:

Except you're not. Even if the theory of evolution was shown to be wrong, that does not automatically mean that creationism or Creationism is correct and can be used as a theory in its place.

AV1611VET · Jun 16, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Except you're not. Even if the theory of evolution was shown to be wrong, that does not automatically mean that creationism or Creationism is correct and can be used as a theory in its place.

My current opinion is that Creationism won't be declared "correct" until Jesus himself returns and convinces the naysayers otherwise.

How that will happen, I don't know, but I assume it will be by either taking them back in time to the Creation Week, or giving some kind of "PowerPoint" presentation, much like Satan gave on the mountain.

But the point is, in the meantime, as you just demonstrated, academia is already claiming the Creationist explanation can still take a hike, even if current theories are shown to be wrong.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2021

AV1611VET said:
My current opinion is that Creationism won't be declared "correct" until Jesus himself returns and convinces the naysayers otherwise.

How that will happen, I don't know, but I assume it will be by either taking them back in time to the Creation Week, or giving some kind of "PowerPoint" presentation, much like Satan gave on the mountain.

But the point is, in the meantime, as you just demonstrated, academia is already claiming the Creationist explanation can still take a hike, even if current theories are shown to be wrong.

Why did you just repeat what you said in post #21?

AV1611VET · Jun 16, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Why did you just repeat what you said in post #21?

I hope you realize, Warden, that I'm actually agreeing with you and Ophiolite.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2021

AV1611VET said:
I hope you realize, Warden, that I'm actually agreeing with you and Ophiolite.

Except that you routinely don't. You argue for your own brand of creationism constantly.

AV1611VET · Jun 16, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Except that you routinely don't.

Not in this case.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Not in this case.

Yeah, no, you do. All you're saying is basically that God will settle it when the time comes, whenever that will be, and that's all that matters to you.

Although, correct me if I am wrong on this since I'm certain I remember you saying it but, you did at one point say that even if Jesus himself said to you that your interpretation of the Bible and all such things is wrong, that you would not accept that you were talking to Jesus (or something similar to that. I feel I've got the gist of it right, but not the exact wording).

AV1611VET · Jun 16, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Yeah, no, you do. All you're saying is basically that God will settle it when the time comes, whenever that will be, and that's all that matters to you.

Until then, I'm agreeing.

Although, correct me if I am wrong on this since I'm certain I remember you saying it but, you did at one point say that even if Jesus himself said to you that your interpretation of the Bible and all such things is wrong, that you would not accept that you were talking to Jesus (or something similar to that. I feel I've got the gist of it right, but not the exact wording).

You mean one of these?

AV1611VET said:
Rebuke him.

Mark 13:21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:

Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

My Alcohol Challenge

AV1611VET said:
I would probably get moderated if I answered this, so for the record, I'll post a verse and let it go at that.

Mark 13:21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:

Some people have pictures of [who they think is] Jesus hanging on their walls.

That's their prerogative, but if they knew what diabolical impersonation was, they might think again.

I would chalk this up to what we call: A sign of the times.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2021

AV1611VET said:
You mean one of these?

I must have been thinking of Dad then. Never mind.

Humble_Disciple · Jun 16, 2021

I'm not here to convince anyone whom the Lord hasn't already chosen to believe. If you open up your heart, and look at the evidence for human evolution without the metaphysical blinders of naturalism and reductionism, you will realize how flimsy it really is.

Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

The fossil evidence regarding human evolution is neither reproducible nor reliable. And since paleoanthropologists cannot explain what caused humans to evolve naked skin, bipedalism, large brain, and other human features, creationists can push the non-scientific idea that this unique evolutionary path was the result of “Intelligent Design.”
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

The above are not the words of a creationist, but instead of a scientist in a moment of honesty on the limitations of science.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
I'm not here to convince anyone whom the Lord hasn't already chosen to believe. If you open up your heart, and look at the evidence for human evolution without the metaphysical blinders of naturalism and reductionism, you will realize how flimsy it really is.

Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

The above are not the words of a creationist, but instead of a scientist in a moment of honesty on the limitations of science.

Buddy, you've had people telling you the problems with the OP and you refuse to acknowledge those comments. Doubling down on them does not mean that you are correct.

Yes, there is a chance that the fossils we have do not show the full picture of human evolution. But you just showing an article where the writer says that they MIGHT (a word that expresses a possibility not an absolute) be incorrect does not mean that they are incorrect.

AV1611VET · Jun 16, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I must have been thinking of Dad then. Never mind.

How about this one?

AV1611VET said:
Hypothetically --- I'd say, "Get thee behind me, Satan."

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2021

AV1611VET said:
How about this one?

Hmm... maybe, but I do think that Dad might have said something similar to what I wrote.

Either way, that's that tangent thought taken care of.

renniks · Jun 16, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
Those who believe in special creation aren't ignorant or stupid. They just look at the evidence without a presupposition of naturalism and

Exactly. The bones they point to are fragmented and incomplete skeletons often mixes of human and primates bones.

renniks · Jun 16, 2021

Frank Robert said:
Personal incredulity is not evidence for "Intelligent Design," it's a fallacy.

Incredulity because of lack of evidence is acceptable.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2021

renniks said:
Exactly. The bones they point to are fragmented and incomplete skeletons often mixes of human and primates bones.

Humans are primates.

renniks · Jun 16, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Humans are primates.

Rotflmao.

The Fossils for Human Evolution

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency