I hope you can raise this and your other detailed questions against your own belief system. You'd be surprised, "believe me"...
Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?
- Thread starter Dredd
- Start date
I hope you can raise this and your other detailed questions against your own belief system. You'd be surprised, "believe me"...
New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects .*.*. sheer invention.
This is from another clip I saved a few years ago. so you don' have to accept it.
At the time I didn't know I would need all the link etc. to this stuff.
This is from another clip I saved a few years ago. so you don' have to accept it.
At the time I didn't know I would need all the link etc. to this stuff.
That is a good question. Just becasue scientists can not prove their ideas about 'evolution', does not mean that I know anything about who the creator is or anything about that. All this has been, is a discussion on the science, and why the start to life and 'evolution' is not possible.
Forget about scientists, imagine there wasn't any science or scientist. There is only you and your belief, your mind, your conscience, and your responsibility against yourself. Would you, or do you ask the similar questions? And if you don't know the entire process of creation, how can you convince yourself to believe in it?
The world can get along without scientists. They did for a long time. But I would not know very much at all about the things scientists have brought to our knowledge. As for a belief in a creator, that is so obvious that it takes a lot of schooling and peer pressure, to get you think that there might not be one. But you may have noticed its only been about 150 years or so, that the study of science, has really taken off. Though there has always been people that were looking into things.
We don't need to know everything about creation. That isn't required , for getting to know who or what the creator is. It really is just a simple answer yes or no. After that it is all you need. Actually most people don't really get into science very much. And if you live in some village in Africa and never went to school, you don't need to know any science to still choose creation. It's the answer in the end that is important.
Its the other questions we have that are much more important than the science.
hay_you:
Nonsense. Look at spidergoat's chart, above. There are dozens of transitional fossils for human ancestor species.
You're starting to troll if you keep denying that these fossils even exist.
You're repeating previously-debunked claims. I already explained to you that fossilisation is a rare process, and I carefully explained to you why animals with harmful mutations are less likely to be fossilised.
Did you not understand my explanation? If you did understand, why are you repeating your incorrect claims?
You're rambling now. What are you saying? Isn't it true that everything you've said here applies equally to creationism?
No there isn't.
No it doesn't.
So your best guess is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, in agreement with scientists. Correct?
I don't see how that is relevant to anything.
Ok. Show me some evidence for special creation of humans.
I already answered that. See my previous post.
Lucy's classification has not been changed, so this is idle speculation.
As I said, that's irrelevant. See my previous post, and try to comment on the substance rather than on side issues.
Correct. Since you don't seem to have much of an understanding of evolution, I'd say it will take you several years to get to the point of accepting it. And that's if you really make an effort to find out about it - something I doubt you will do.
This is out of context. I don't think you understand what they are saying, or why. You're just quote-mining to support your creationist views. Are you using Answers in Genesis as your primary source? Because the kind of stuff you're coming up with sounds just like the sort of dishonest half-truths and selective reporting that is their trademark.
None of them. They are different species. That's the whole point. Understand?
None of them. They are different species. Understand?
They went extinct because later hominids outcompeted them for the same ecological niche.
They're all close to us, and the changes are already small.
If creation was true, all animals would appear in all levels of the fossil record. They patently do not. So creationism is wrong.
We're not descended from any kind of ape that exists today. I already told you that. Did you not understand?
Yes they have. The evidence is overwhelming.
Creation is a magical process, so it can do anything. All the evidence is against it, though.
Nothing is absolutely provable in science. Creation has absolutely been proven false though.
Nonsense. Look at spidergoat's chart, above. There are dozens of transitional fossils for human ancestor species.
You're starting to troll if you keep denying that these fossils even exist.
You're repeating previously-debunked claims. I already explained to you that fossilisation is a rare process, and I carefully explained to you why animals with harmful mutations are less likely to be fossilised.
Did you not understand my explanation? If you did understand, why are you repeating your incorrect claims?
You're rambling now. What are you saying? Isn't it true that everything you've said here applies equally to creationism?
No there isn't.
No it doesn't.
So your best guess is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, in agreement with scientists. Correct?
I don't see how that is relevant to anything.
Ok. Show me some evidence for special creation of humans.
I already answered that. See my previous post.
Lucy's classification has not been changed, so this is idle speculation.
As I said, that's irrelevant. See my previous post, and try to comment on the substance rather than on side issues.
Correct. Since you don't seem to have much of an understanding of evolution, I'd say it will take you several years to get to the point of accepting it. And that's if you really make an effort to find out about it - something I doubt you will do.
This is out of context. I don't think you understand what they are saying, or why. You're just quote-mining to support your creationist views. Are you using Answers in Genesis as your primary source? Because the kind of stuff you're coming up with sounds just like the sort of dishonest half-truths and selective reporting that is their trademark.
None of them. They are different species. That's the whole point. Understand?
None of them. They are different species. Understand?
They went extinct because later hominids outcompeted them for the same ecological niche.
They're all close to us, and the changes are already small.
If creation was true, all animals would appear in all levels of the fossil record. They patently do not. So creationism is wrong.
We're not descended from any kind of ape that exists today. I already told you that. Did you not understand?
Yes they have. The evidence is overwhelming.
Creation is a magical process, so it can do anything. All the evidence is against it, though.
Nothing is absolutely provable in science. Creation has absolutely been proven false though.
There are many reasons why. Man has a need to create and explore and discover. There are no animals that are like humans in this. To go with this, we enjoy math, science, art, music. Another very important reason is that humans have a very advanced language, and we build very complicated homes. We ask the questions why, where, who, and are interested in the future, for ourselves and our children. We were not given the strength of apes, or the eyesight of an eagle, or the speed of a horse and big cats. We are basically helpless for many years. Even our skin is not like other animals.We have not fur or hair to protect us from the elements. But what we were given was a brain that puts us above anything else. We can enjoy life, not just exist, to procreate. Our brain tells us that we could keep learning and progressing, for a lot longer than 70 or 80 years. These are just some of things.
Just to get people that put their trust in scientists, to rethink it.
Also when I watch, or read, programs and papers from scientists and they start going into all this 'evolution' stuff it drives me nuts. They talk about it as though it was real, and try to fit everything into it. There are a lot of people that listen to this stuff.
Besides these forums have a section, where religions can be put down, with scientists superior knowledge.
Its all a lie. It might be that someone might be interested in knowing that.
hay_you:
My cat likes to explore and discover. Beavers seem to have a need to create dams. Birds create nests. Termites build mounds. Whales create songs.
Have you noticed that humans have evolved bigger brains than most animals? Think about the implications of that.
Termites build homes that are thousands of times the size of an individual animal. They are amazingly complex.
Humans have evolved bigger brains than many animals. Think about the implications of that for language.
Have you noticed that humans have evolved bigger brains than other animals?
We're not "given" anything. We evolved that way, because we developed tool use. Did you notice that humans have evolved bigger brains than apes, eagles, horses and cats? Think about that for a moment.
That's because humans have evolved bigger brains than many other animals. If our brains were full size when we were born, we wouldn't be able to fit our heads through our mothers' pelvises. It's a good thing we evolved to be born early.
Have you noticed that we wear clothes? That has led to us evolving to have less hair. Evolution explain this. See?
We evolved a brain, you mean. And it doesn't put us "above" any other animal.
My cat enjoys life, and she is neutered so she can't procreate.
Why did your God limit us to 70-80 years and give us a brain that could keep learning and progressing?
---
Sorry. I thought you were going to present some evidence for the special creation of human beings. Have you got any, or just a list of differences between humans and other animals?
My cat likes to explore and discover. Beavers seem to have a need to create dams. Birds create nests. Termites build mounds. Whales create songs.
Have you noticed that humans have evolved bigger brains than most animals? Think about the implications of that.
Termites build homes that are thousands of times the size of an individual animal. They are amazingly complex.
Humans have evolved bigger brains than many animals. Think about the implications of that for language.
Have you noticed that humans have evolved bigger brains than other animals?
We're not "given" anything. We evolved that way, because we developed tool use. Did you notice that humans have evolved bigger brains than apes, eagles, horses and cats? Think about that for a moment.
That's because humans have evolved bigger brains than many other animals. If our brains were full size when we were born, we wouldn't be able to fit our heads through our mothers' pelvises. It's a good thing we evolved to be born early.
Have you noticed that we wear clothes? That has led to us evolving to have less hair. Evolution explain this. See?
We evolved a brain, you mean. And it doesn't put us "above" any other animal.
My cat enjoys life, and she is neutered so she can't procreate.
Why did your God limit us to 70-80 years and give us a brain that could keep learning and progressing?
---
Sorry. I thought you were going to present some evidence for the special creation of human beings. Have you got any, or just a list of differences between humans and other animals?
hay_you:
You know practically nothing about evolution, so how do you possibly hope to convince somebody who knows something about it to change their mind?
What you need to do is first go away and learn about the theory you're trying to criticise. Then try to come up with some convincing arguments. At the moment, you're just making yourself look like a child who doesn't want to believe in facts placed before him.
Only where religions make claims that contradict known science.
Science is all a lie?
You really need to read more widely than Answers in Genesis and your bible, and start learning some science. Right now, you just look a bit stupid.
You know practically nothing about evolution, so how do you possibly hope to convince somebody who knows something about it to change their mind?
What you need to do is first go away and learn about the theory you're trying to criticise. Then try to come up with some convincing arguments. At the moment, you're just making yourself look like a child who doesn't want to believe in facts placed before him.
Only where religions make claims that contradict known science.
Science is all a lie?
You really need to read more widely than Answers in Genesis and your bible, and start learning some science. Right now, you just look a bit stupid.
I knew this is what you would say,
When was the last time you saw one of these build a rocket to go to the moon. When was the last time you saw one of these paint a Mona Lisa. Which one of these could replace a scientists?Creation does not contradict science, it is scientists that contradict creation.
It is not the science that is wrong , it is the scientists.
Do you have any idea what some people think of the scientists for their stand on this.
This is a religious question, and answer is why the future looks bright.
That is exactly the answer, we are different than other animals.
hay_you:
You ignored my previous post about the evolution of the human brain. Go back and read it again. If you have questions, feel free to ask me.
That's a problem for Creation, because creation can't ever change, can it? It's religious dogma, never revisable. If the truth doesn't match creation, too bad for the truth, eh?
Er... I think you'll find it is scientists who do science.
Creationists? They don't really think at all, in my experience.
That's ok. This is the comparative religion forum. Creationism is a religious idea, not a scientific one.
A fish is different from an elephant, too. Does that mean fish were specially created by God?
Oh wait, I forgot. ALL species were specially created by God, you say. Right? But you have no evidence of that. Just empty claims that you keep repeating. Yet you pretend an interest in science.
Why don't you just toddle off and read your bible, seeing as it tells you everything you need to know? Stop bothering people who are actually interested in the truth of the real world.
You ignored my previous post about the evolution of the human brain. Go back and read it again. If you have questions, feel free to ask me.
That's a problem for Creation, because creation can't ever change, can it? It's religious dogma, never revisable. If the truth doesn't match creation, too bad for the truth, eh?
Er... I think you'll find it is scientists who do science.
Creationists? They don't really think at all, in my experience.
That's ok. This is the comparative religion forum. Creationism is a religious idea, not a scientific one.
A fish is different from an elephant, too. Does that mean fish were specially created by God?
Oh wait, I forgot. ALL species were specially created by God, you say. Right? But you have no evidence of that. Just empty claims that you keep repeating. Yet you pretend an interest in science.
Why don't you just toddle off and read your bible, seeing as it tells you everything you need to know? Stop bothering people who are actually interested in the truth of the real world.
Well I took that it was obvious that the brain was created for man. It didn't 'evolve' it was created that way.
Creation is the truth. Scientists are still looking for it.
Everyone does science, the scientists try to explain how it works.
Life was created in kinds, who knows what species are? But a fish is definitely different than elephant. ( you can't be serious )
Yes I do think that I better go. We really have talked about this enough.
I am interested in the real world, but I would like to see it better than it is now, headed for destruction.
Anyway thanks for the discussions. I really do think that scientists and creationists should work together. It's that some just don't want it.
You took it as obvious? How scientific is that?
That's an assumption.
Another assumption followed by an untruth.
Everyone does science? No they don't.
Assumption.
And you do that by ignoring or denying parts of it?
Why should they? Creationists have nothing to offer.
Last edited:
That's partially true. Without DNA, the exact relationship is unclear and probably complex, but the overall picture is clear, there is a progression from an upright-walking ape with the brain the size of a chimpanzee to what we think of as modern humans.hay_youIn a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall said:
Yes, the family tree has been revealed to be complex, with many branches. If creationism were true, we would not see this phenomenon, all these seemingly related hominids forming a complex story of adaptation and increased intelligence.
You tell me, what's the definition of human?
Of course, the exact timeline cannot be observed as it happened, so scientists make inferences from the data. Where are they now? Some branches must have been a dead end, at least one led to us, maybe some branches united again after a time apart.
That would be Homo erectus. The fossils that bridge the gap are the ones that anthropologists fight about where to classify.
What do you define as "big"?
You still haven't defined what it means to be "an animal", as in one type of animal. There is no type, only an average of common traits.
How can a cell turn into something like a human? Your mother did it in about 9 months.
What are "completed" animals? Extant ones?
I just explained all that. Would you at least do me the courtesy of looking at it?
Well, we have models of this also which make a great deal of sense.
Well, a large number of quite radical mutants exist with appropriate innervation and blood vessel support. So it appears that the body adapts quite substantially to new tissue milieus.
But now it is a herbivorous lizard. What happens if the source population goes extinct? In any event, the diverged subspecies is now free to evolve along other lines. New adaptations will occur which improve the ability of these lizards to utilize their new habitat.