Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It wasn't true before the 1850s.
Does the OP even care about whether science was even used at all except insofar as it confirms their presuppositions? I'm skeptical they've got much more than the grasp of science a high school graduate wouldYou'll find that Lyell and Whewell and Cuvier and Linnaeus gathered their specimens from the natural world and not from biblical concordances.
OP is here for an argument. The science was settled years ago, but an argument is always a fun distraction.Does the OP even care about whether science was even used at all except insofar as it confirms their presuppositions? I'm skeptical they've got much more than the grasp of science a high school graduate would
Careful, you might give them the impression science is making "absolute" claimsOP is here for an argument. The science was settled years ago, but an argument is always a fun distraction.
OP already thinks that. His religious views are absolute, therefore any disagreeing view must likewise be absolute. Like most creationists he is very black & white in his perceptions.Careful, you might give them the impression science is making "absolute" claims
The 'Big Bang' is a cosmological model. That model would be completely meaningless unless time is included as a dimensional attribute of that model.jamesbond007 said:If you want more, then we have an explanation for the time before the Big Bang when there was no time.
Our minds invoke the dimension of time in order to explain the dimensionality of the spacetime model.jamesbond007 said:One evidence as I said was we only have access to space. We are not fourth dimension creatures, so we do not have access to time.
Lucy is the one that was presented.
There is disagreement that Lucy walked upright since her skeleton does not have a foot. It's only by the knee, but doubters state the knee shows she was a knuckle walker, i.e four limbs. OTOH, the gorilla foot is similar to a modern gorilla and shows the apes were still climbing trees. It falsifies the theory that apes walked upright. We see that today with modern apes. Even a bear can walk more upright that an ape.
And also, since this does need to be pointed out a few times, the fossil of Lucy is not the be-all and end-all of evidence of Australopithecus fossils, with more than 300 different specimens being discovered.
The Precambrian Rabbit argument is basically to find something out of place with ToE. There have been several objects already found to falsify evolution.
View attachment 288410
This is a 3.4 million-year-old partial fossil foot of an ape, like a gorilla, unearthed in Ethiopia. It was deemed to walk awkwardly, not exactly upright. This belonged to the same time history that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was found. Lucy didn't even have a foot. This appeared in Nature.
'A SET of foot bones found in Ethiopia suggests our ancestors kept climbing trees for millions of years after they came down to walk on two feet.
The research, published today in the journal Nature, adds to the complexity of our family tree and points to the existence of a new species, somewhere between primate and human, that lived about 3.4 million years ago.
Co-author Dr Bruce M. Latimer, executive director of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, said that the discovery was "quite shocking" because it did not fit the present model of human evolution.
The likely human ancestor known to scientists from that time ("Lucy") had feet much like modern humans, but the new fossil foot has an opposable big toe, like a gorilla or chimp.
"This new specimen is walking upright when on the ground, doing it in an awkward fashion, not like us, but still maintains its big toe grasping ability," Dr Latimer said.
"What we see here is two different groups and that was one of the big surprises."'
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...a/news-story/4c1e7e0dfa74f25f5be28e76fa7c996e
Father Georges Lemaitre went to great lengths to prevent the big bang being taken as a divine act of creation - he even wrote to the pope asking him not to do so.One big example is creation science states God was the cause of the beginning of spacetime and the universe, i.e. Big Bang by Father Georges Lemaitre.
Perhaps you'd like astrology to be taught in schools too? When the case for teaching creation science in schools went to court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 2005), the leading creation science 'scientist', William Dembski, had to admit, under oath, that it was no more scientific than astrology...If irrelevant as you state, then I agree. We should allow creation science to be taught in public schools to offer an alternative to evolution and just repeal the laws.
You really don't get it, which is hardly surprising. GOD is Truth. Anything that contradicts God's word is worthless. Evolution is contrary to God's word and hence untrue.
Did you know that some modern primates have tails and some don't?
You'll find that Lyell and Whewell and Cuvier and Linnaeus gathered their specimens from the natural world and not from biblical concordances.
That's hardly an out of place fossil. I don't think anyone was proposing that the species that led to humanity was some exclusive lineage of apes without branches and variation.
Did you know that some modern primates have tails and some don't?
Father Georges Lemaitre went to great lengths to prevent the big bang being taken as a divine act of creation - he even wrote to the pope asking him not to do so.
Neither atheist presuppositions nor creationist presuppositions carry any weight in science.What they gathered or what we have as evidence isn't the issue. It's atheists' presuppositions versus the creationists' presuppositions. Maybe the reality is we reach our conclusions using the same data based on our presuppositions.
I mean our apes today do not walk upright. If your theory was valid, then they would. I even said bears are more bipedal.
Perhaps you'd like astrology to be taught in schools too? When the case for teaching creation science in schools went to court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 2005), the leading creation science 'scientist', William Dembski, had to admit, under oath, that it was no more scientific than astrology...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?