What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[mark kennedy]

Of course not. The first one and the most important one in Christian Science education.

If Christians wanted to teach something it would be genomics. Just getting the actual details concerning the divergence between Chimpanzees and humans is enough to cause skepticism of any mildly educated inquirer.

 

[pitabread]

If Christians wanted to teach something it would be genomics.

The irony being that modern comparative genomic methods and algorithms features direct applications of the phylogenies that creationists typically reject.

So by all means, teach away.

 

[mark kennedy]

The irony being that modern comparative genomic methods and algorithms features direct applications of the phylogenies that creationists typically reject.

So by all means, teach away.

Always have and always will and is divergence is too great to be the result of natural selection.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Even if that is true, though I disagree

I have a photo of a Tom cat chasing the Calico cat across the fence. Clearly the Calico cat was doing everything she could to get away from the Tom cat so she would not get raped. I suppose you have the right to try to claim that is my subjective opinion. According to Wiki: " These observations of forced sex among animals are not controversial. What is controversial is the interpretation of these observations and the extension of theories based on them to humans. "

so what?! We have brains and some of us have empathy. We can use them and make ethics and laws.

So the issue here has to do with the law? I assume you mean man's law and not God's law. Are you saying we should follow the moral laws found in the Bible. Or are you saying that we are not able to follow those laws? Just what are you saying?

 

[joshua 1 9]

LOL

You never cease to amaze.

This is a discussion we have had many times on this board.

 

[Motherofkittens]

I have a photo of a Tom cat chasing the Calico cat across the fence. Clearly the Calico cat was doing everything she could to get away from the Tom cat so she would not get raped. I suppose you have the right to try to claim that is my subjective opinion. According to Wiki: " These observations of forced sex among animals are not controversial. What is controversial is the interpretation of these observations and the extension of theories based on them to humans. "

So the issue here has to do with the law? I assume you mean man's law and not God's law. Are you saying we should follow the moral laws found in the Bible. Or are you saying that we are not able to follow those laws? Just what are you saying?

Of course rape exists outside of human animals. What I am disagreeing with is that it is "a driving force behind evolution." I am skeptical you honestly misunderstood, considering your other posts. But let us move on...

I already mentioned there are living organisms where rape doesn't happen. And I don't just mean those that asexualy reproduce or non mammals. For an example look up the bonobos. They have a very egalitarian, very non violent culture.

Rape, violence, etc., even death are not needed for evolution to happen. It indeed does happen quite a bit, but so what? Most animals poop in the ground or water. So, we shouldn't have toilets? If you push someone down a cliff on earth they will fall and get hurt or die, because of gravity. So we should push people off high places? That makes no sense.

I also said ethics, then we make those into laws. But before I get into mine, please, go into detail what are these so-called "God's laws?"

 

[joshua 1 9]

Of course rape exists outside of human animals. What I am disagreeing with is that it is "a driving force behind evolution." I am skeptical you honestly misunderstood, considering your other posts. But let us move on...

I already mentioned there are living organisms where rape doesn't happen. And I don't just mean those that asexualy reproduce or non mammals. For an example look up the bonobos. They have a very egalitarian, very non violent culture.

Rape, violence, etc., even death are not needed for evolution to happen. It indeed does happen quite a bit, but so what? Most animals poop in the ground or water. So, we shouldn't have toilets? If you push someone down a cliff on earth they will fall and get hurt or die, because of gravity. So we should push people off high places? That makes no sense.

I also said ethics, then we make those into laws. But before I get into mine, please, go into detail what are these so-called "God's laws?"

This is the difference between evolution and creationism. We believe that Creation reflects the fallen condition of mankind. All of Creation is going to be redeemed and restored.

I do not know what any of this has to do with what is going on in the news. It looks like Hollywood is starting to clean itself up and that is a good thing.

If you want to understand God's law then 119 Psalm is the best for that. David says that the Law of God is his delight, because the law of God is designed to preserve our life and to lead us in the way that is good and right, proper and true. This is the way of life & health, healing & prosperity. Those who follow the law walk in freedom.

Psalm 119
127 Because I love your commands more than pure gold,
128 and because I consider all your precepts right, I hate every wrong path.

God shows us the way we are to go and the life we are to live.

 

[Speedwell]

This is the difference between evolution and creationism. We believe that Creation reflects the fallen condition of mankind. All of Creation is going to be redeemed and restored.
.

That is a very good point. See, other kinds of Christians think that creation is just fine, it's only just us as are fallen.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course not. The first one and the most important one in Christian Science education.

No idea what you are talking about.

The abrahamic creation myth is not "the first one".
And there is no such thing as "christian science".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm talking genus

No, you clearly said that "homo habilis looks like chimpanzee because they are". It's right there. It's fine if you wish to retract it, but don't lie.

The Taung Child, that replaced the Piltdown hoax, is a chimpanzee, so is Lucy.

Lucy is an Australopithecus Afaransis and she is just 1 of more then 100 specimen found.
And no, A. Afaransis isn't a chimp either.

Remember what the chimp skull looked like?
Here's A Afaransis:

I wonder what you hope to accomplish wich such obviously wrong statements. I mean, 5 seconds on google and you can pull up these skulls and clearly see that they aren't from the same species.

Apparantly, during your "10 years of study", you never notice the vast differences between these different species.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, you clearly said that "homo habilis looks like chimpanzee because they are". It's right there. It's fine if you wish to retract it, but don't lie.

There in no way they belong in our genus. The Taung Child is small even for a chimpanzee. To say there is a rational explanation for this fossil belonging in our lineage is a lie that defies all logic.

Lucy is an Australopithecus Afaransis and she is just 1 of more then 100 specimen found.
And no, A. Afaransis isn't a chimp either.

Another one that is little more then a chimp.

Remember what the chimp skull looked like?
Here's A Afaransis:

View attachment 211142

I wonder what you hope to accomplish wich such obviously wrong statements. I mean, 5 seconds on google and you can pull up these skulls and clearly see that they aren't from the same species.

Apparantly, during your "10 years of study", you never notice the vast differences between these different species.

Species is one thing, genus is another and nature does not make leaps.

 

[Ophiolite]

Another one [Australopithecus afaransis] that is little more then a chimp..

On balance, I agree with you. But since you and I are little more than chimps also (and in some respects, somewhat less) I have to agree with you.

 

[mark kennedy]

On balance, I agree with you. But since you and I are little more than chimps also (and in some respects, somewhat less) I have to agree with you.

There is just one major problem Darwinians have no answer for. Your brain is almost three time bigger and that had to happen 2mya overnight. With no viable cause.

 

[Jimmy D]

There in no way they belong in our genus. The Taung Child is small even for a chimpanzee. To say there is a rational explanation for this fossil belonging in our lineage is a lie that defies all logic.

Children tend to be quite small.

Is the rational explanation for it being an early hominin it's upright spine and posture? Maybe debateable, I haven't studied it in any great depth so I don't know, but hardly a "lie" or logic defying.

 

[juvenissun]

No idea what you are talking about.

The abrahamic creation myth is not "the first one".
And there is no such thing as "christian science".

You have no idea, then you can ask. That is science.
Christian Science is sciences studied by Christians.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is just one major problem Darwinians have no answer for..

A scientist who employed only the knowledge and ideas available in Darwin's time would likely have had no satisfactory answer. Fortunately evolutionists have moved on since Darwin's time, and many of the problems that Darwin noted in his theory have been addressed.

Your brain is almost three time bigger

You are too kind, but don't belittle yourself so.

that had to happen 2mya overnight

Is this a tacit expression of the idea that a day in Genesis might be millions of years long?

Mark, you and I both know that whatever evidence, hypotheses or arguments are set before you on this point, they are going to be rejected by you. Can you offer me any viable reason why I, or any other member, should invest the time in putting these forward when you are simply going to ingore them?

 

[pitabread]

Christian Science is sciences studied by Christians.

Christian Science is denomination of Christianity predominantly based around the concept of faith healing in lieu of proper medical treatment: Christian Science - Wikipedia

Insofar as real science goes, there is no religious annotation of scientific principles or study thereof. A Muslim biologist studying biology isn't studying "Muslim biology" any more than a Christian biologist is studying "Christian biology". They're both just studying biology.

 

[Jimmy D]

You have no idea, then you can ask. That is science.
Christian Science is sciences studied by Christians.

Is Christian science acceptable to you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There in no way they belong in our genus.

And still backtracking...
You said, and I quote "they look like chimpanzee because they are".

You didn't speak about genus or whatever. You literally said that Homo Habilis IS A CHIMP.

Can't you just be honest and admit that that was obviously false?

The Taung Child is small even for a chimpanzee.

In the previous post, you said the Taung Child IS a chimpanzee as well. And you also said that Lucy, an A. Afaransis, is ALSO a chimp.

Since you are apparantly also too lazy to look up the skulls in google, I guess I'll do your homework once again and at the same time expose this nonsense also...

The Taung Child is a member of the species Australopheticus Africanus.
Here is its skull:

Clearly not a chimpansee either.

So.... The counter is now at THREE species (A Afaransis, A Africans and H Habilis) that you claimed to being really a chimpanzee and you were utterly wrong on all counts.

Any others you wish to falsely claim are really chimpanzee's?
There's still quite a few left to make incorrect claims about... H Erectus, H Rudolfensis, H Neanderthalis,....

Do yourself a favor though... next time you wish to blindly claim something is a chimp, look it up first.

To say there is a rational explanation for this fossil belonging in our lineage is a lie that defies all logic.

But making false claims about these fossil that ANYONE can dismantle with a simple google search in less then 5 seconds... that is not "lying" or "defying logic" or "being irrational", I bet?

Another one that is little more then a chimp.

All 3 skulls I posted clearly are a lot more like human skulls then chimp skulls.

Species is one thing, genus is another and nature does not make leaps.

I think your track record of making claims about fossils and species in this thread alone, have exposed your ignorance on the matter to such a point that we can all safely ignore whatever you have to say on the matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is just one major problem Darwinians have no answer for. Your brain is almost three time bigger and that had to happen 2mya overnight. With no viable cause.

Nevermind that all the fossils leading up to H Sapiens, show a clear gradual increase of cranial capacity.