Two quick articles on human evolution:

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Which doesn't answer my question. Just saying self-consciousness is the result of a designer is no explanation at all. A designer could have designed a process of evolution which resulted in creatures with brains that produced self consciousness as an emergent property.

I think you shot yourself in the foot when you used the example of music played through a recorder. None of that was designed by chance over time. It was deliberately planned and designed all the way.

I already showed how a composer failed miserably by trying to compose a piece of music by chance. It just didn't work, and it was just chaotic.

So your example of music actually proved that our logical mind and self-consciousness had to be the product of a designer who deliberately planned and designed them, and did not use time and chance to achieve his design.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you shot yourself in the foot when you used the example of music played through a recorder. None of that was designed by chance over time. It was deliberately planned and designed all the way.

I already showed how a composer failed miserably by trying to compose a piece of music by chance. It just didn't work, and it was just chaotic.

So your example of music actually proved that our logical mind and self-consciousness had to be the product of a designer who deliberately planned and designed them, and did not use time and chance to achieve his design.

Not my foot. I'm a Christian and believe that God is author of our being, so your lame rambling about a "designer" doesn't disconcert me, I merely find it disappointing. And you still didn't answer my question.

 

[MIDutch]

They found a skull from one part of Africa, an arm from somewhere else, and a jawbone. It was discovered that the skull was that of an ape, the arm was from a baboon and the jawbone was from a pig. What they did was to put these bones together, and filled in the rest from their own imagination. No full set of bones has been found of any of these intermediate ape/man species. It was a total hoax, like the Pitdown man.

Wow. Are creationists still using these willfully told falsehoods? I thought creationism had progressed beyond promoting lying for the cause.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Wow. Are creationists still using these willfully told falsehoods? I thought creationism had progressed beyond promoting lying for the cause.

The question remains. Show me one, just one, piece of conclusive evidence that any ape has actually developed into a human being. Just a collection of random bones won't do, or artists' impressions made up of a collection of ape bones and one or two human ones collected from different parts of Africa.

 

[MIDutch]

The question remains. Show me one, just one, piece of conclusive evidence that any ape has actually developed into a human being. Just a collection of random bones won't do, or artists' impressions made up of a collection of ape bones and one or two human ones collected from different parts of Africa.

Not my job.

If you refuse to look at the 160+ years worth of evidence that fills THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, research hospitals, libraries, etc -

if you insist on lying about the work done by MILLIONS of scientists, technicians, students, etc. -

if you choose to ignore the entire human endeavor know as science, it's methodology, it's history, and achievements -

why should I care whether you're convinced or not. I don't. I just hope your children are of a different mindset.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Not my job.

If you refuse to look at the 160+ years worth of evidence that fills THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, research hospitals, libraries, etc -

if you insist on lying about the work done by MILLIONS of scientists, technicians, students, etc. -

if you choose to ignore the entire human endeavor know as science, it's methodology, it's history, and achievements -

why should I care whether you're convinced or not. I don't. I just hope your children are of a different mindset.

The reason is that you cannot provide even one piece of evidence, because there is none.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Not my foot. I'm a Christian and believe that God is author of our being, so your lame rambling about a "designer" doesn't disconcert me, I merely find it disappointing. And you still didn't answer my question.

A Christian believes that there was a real Adam and Eve. But then that is off topic, so I can't go down that track without hijacking the thread. So I will keep to asking evolutionists to provide actual substantive evidence to prove it.

 

[Speedwell]

Okay, if you are a Christian and believe that Jesus died on the cross, then why did He die?

For our sins, and rose again on the third day. Happy Easter, BTW.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For our sins, and rose again on the third day. Happy Easter, BTW.

Thank you.
I don't want to go down this line of thinking because I will rightly be advised that any comment I may make on that score will be inconsistent with the purpose of the Creation/Evolution forum, and therefore against the rules.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For our sins, and rose again on the third day. Happy Easter, BTW.

I put the same question on another thread. Here is the link:
If an afterlife exists near the end of the thread. I can carry the discussion on in that forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Christian believes that there was a real Adam and Eve. But then that is off topic, so I can't go down that track without hijacking the thread. So I will keep to asking evolutionists to provide actual substantive evidence to prove it.

No, there are countless Christians that do not believe that part of the Bible. That is only a minority of Christians today. One cannot both claim that and claim that Christianity is the number one religion in the world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason is that you cannot provide even one piece of evidence, because there is none.

No, you have already demonstrated that you do not understand the topic and have improperly rejected evidence. Until you learn what is and what is not evidence you are in no position to demand any.

The fact that the fossil record perfectly supports the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution is scientific evidence for the theory. There you go, a freebie.

 

[MIDutch]

The reason is that you cannot provide even one piece of evidence, because there is none.

False.
What can not be presented is evidence you will ever accept as such.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question remains. Show me one, just one, piece of conclusive evidence that any ape has actually developed into a human being. Just a collection of random bones won't do, or artists' impressions made up of a collection of ape bones and one or two human ones collected from different parts of Africa.

Are you a human being?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. Are creationists still using these willfully told falsehoods? I thought creationism had progressed beyond promoting lying for the cause.

I am still hoping for a new argument. I swear that for five years or more all I have seen are PRATT's.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

False.
What can not be presented is evidence you will ever accept as such.

This whole debate could be settled if you could provide one scrap of evidence that proves the evolutionary process. Just one!

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you.
I don't want to go down this line of thinking because I will rightly be advised that any comment I may make on that score will be inconsistent with the purpose of the Creation/Evolution forum, and therefore against the rules.

It does relate to the evolution=atheism issue, which s frequently discussed in this forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This whole debate could be settled if you could provide one scrap of evidence that proves the evolutionary process. Just one!

LOL! Now you just confirmed a lack of understanding of the scientific method again.

You have been corrected on this before. And your inability to accept evidence does not mean that it does not exist. Lastly you would not be able to present the evidence if given to you.

You are in no position to make any such demands until you learn the basics. And yet for some reason you are afraid to discuss them.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Are you a human being?

Yes.

 

[Speedwell]

A Christian believes that there was a real Adam and Eve. But then that is off topic, so I can't go down that track without hijacking the thread. So I will keep to asking evolutionists to provide actual substantive evidence to prove it.

That statement is actually a violation of forum rules, not just a hijacking. The assertion that it is necessary for a Christian to subscribe to a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories effectively denies the faith of millions of Christians worldwide and is forbidden here.