Hmm, according to the evolutionary theories, doesn't all life share some common ancestory at some point in the evolutionary tree? If that's so, then what exactly are you trying to say in your post?
Baron Max
What creationists know
- Thread starter Carico
- Start date
Hmm, according to the evolutionary theories, doesn't all life share some common ancestory at some point in the evolutionary tree? If that's so, then what exactly are you trying to say in your post?
Baron Max
Wow. I gotta say, I'm not sure I've ever seen a poster make this big of a mistake. Dude literally tried to say that Homo Sapiens are direct descendants of Neanderthals, and based it soley on the one documentary he's ever seen on the subject.
Wow. Talk about laying your cards on the table. Holy crap.
Wow. Talk about laying your cards on the table. Holy crap.
Bells
Staff member
So now you're claiming that neanderthals were not a transitional species to humans. Is that correct? If so, then I agree with you 100%.But unfortunately, you disagree with every book & documentary on evolution. But again since the theory of evolution is as imaginary as it is subjective, that explains the disagreements between evolutionists.
This is where you've completely discredited yourself as having even a passing understanding of human evolution. Indeed, its no wonder now that you seem not to have even a basic 8th grade education in science .... you apparently don't.
In 8th grade textbooks, even in your day (which was probably the early 1970's), the notion that H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals was but one of two main hypotheses. Over the years, researchers have remained divided as to which was expected to be true.
These are known as the Multiregional and the Replacement hypotheses and, until recently, the division of researchers was fairly evenly split between the two hypotheses. Recent data suggests, however, that the Replacement hypothesis is the correct one, meaning that humans did not evolve from Neanderthals but, rather, replaced them.
Until this recent data, I was leaning more toward the Multi-Regional camp, but I cannot deny the science.
Both Neanderthals and H. sapiens evolved from a common ancestor, that much is clear (and deniable only to the most ignorant and undereducated in society), but the only debate in paleoanthropology is whether they evolved concurrently or whether one evolved from the other. It looks to be the former more and more.
So, with the ignorant and undereducated statement of "every book & documentary on evolution," there really is little more on any topic of academic discourse -including human religious psychology and sociological behavior- that we can take seriously from an anti-science troll like carico.
I suspect her days on this forum are numbered based on the tolerance we've had for similar anti-science cranks like IAC in the past.
Not to worry that you're putting the cart before the horse so to speak, those two gems are all you will ever need in your intellectual arsenal to combat the evils of rationale. You need not know anything more, the rest is irrelevant, yes?
Bells
Staff member
It's your 'Sean the Sheep' avatar James.
Considering that those 2 gems are one of the few truthful statements on this forum, then yes, that's pretty much all anyone needs to know.
In fact, if you knew them too, not only would you know everything in my OP, you'd know a lot more about life, yourself, man, the history of man, how to handle relationships, finances, how to treat others, what love is and where you're going when you die.
But I already knew that most people here can't distinguish truth from fiction so I don't expect you to know any of the above. Nevertheless, I'm called to explain it to you. And That I do.
Bells
Staff member
Considering that those 2 gems are one of the few truthful statements on this forum, then yes, that's pretty much all anyone needs to know.
In fact, if you knew them too, not only would you know everything in my OP, you'd know a lot more about life, yourself, man, the history of man, how to handle relationships, finances, how to treat others, what love is and where you're going when you die.
Here's the thing Carico. You haven't explained anything. You have made some broad statements and when questioned or queried about said statements, you have failed to respond.
You have thus far shown a complete lack of understanding of human evolution. So much so that it borders on ignorance and would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful. I feel anger at the education you have received simply because your education system has failed you terribly.
While you may view evolution as fiction, evidence states otherwise. That you could refer to evolution as mere fiction while arguing that the Bible is the truth is astounding.
If you are going to make claims as you have done in this thread, if you want to be taken even remotely seriously, then you need to back up those claims. You need to be able to discuss your claims in a manner that does not simply amount to "God did it and I know he did because it says so in the Bible".
And that is the wrong set of buttons you're pushing.
What you have to try is to arrange a logical fallacy to trip over, or explore why if there is so little faith to be placed in science, so many people use it so much?
Why does this guy have faith in the Internet - a direct result of computer development, or the WWW - a result of scientific investigation into fundamental particle physics at CERN, where they're looking for the "God" particle now.
Why the dichotomy? Computer scientists are OK, paleontologists and biologists aren't?
Evolution is imaginary, but electrical engineering is for real? How many other scientists are researching imaginary things? How can we be sure any of it is for real, after all, it's all science.
What you have to try is to arrange a logical fallacy to trip over, or explore why if there is so little faith to be placed in science, so many people use it so much?
Why does this guy have faith in the Internet - a direct result of computer development, or the WWW - a result of scientific investigation into fundamental particle physics at CERN, where they're looking for the "God" particle now.
Why the dichotomy? Computer scientists are OK, paleontologists and biologists aren't?
Evolution is imaginary, but electrical engineering is for real? How many other scientists are researching imaginary things? How can we be sure any of it is for real, after all, it's all science.
That's what I suspected. Of course, if that's really all you needed to know, why are you not living in a cave? Why do you take advantage of everything science has to offer while making such statements? Your computer, internet connection and most everything else you've come to know is a product of people who go well beyond your level of knowledge.
So, instead of being a hypocrite, why don't you give up everything science has provided you and go live in a cave with your two gems, as that is all you need to know.
How can that be? You stated that only two things need to be known, those other things you state have nothing to do with that level of knowledge, they are well beyond that level. You are now contradicting yourself.
You've said one thing that contradicted another, that isn't explaining, that's causing confusion.
If I'm looking at leaves ON a tree, I have no need to imagine what the tree looks like...the tree is obviously there...
(This thread expanded a lot since page 1
)Because God's wisdom is infinite since he's omniscient and man is not. So there's always something more to learn in the bible. One can only build on the truth. Once you learn one truth you can go on to another. But one cannot build on lies. And that's why as scientists are coming out and acknowledging that evolution is a myth, they'll have to throw away everything they thought they knew and start all over again in trying to find the origins of man. So I'll stick with God's word so my knowledge can continue to grow.
Because God's wisdom is infinite since he's omniscient and man is not. So there's always something more to learn in the bible. One can only build on the truth. Once you learn one truth you can go on to another. But one cannot build on lies. And that's why as scientists are coming out and acknowledging that evolution is a myth, they'll have to throw away everything they thought they knew and start all over again in trying to find the origins of man. So I'll stick with God's word so my knowledge can continue to grow.
Is God bringing out any new books in the near future?
Which of the Ark survivors is the ancestor of the African Pygmy?
I saw that question once before on another forum. A creationist answered that soon after the Ark went aground that evolution took place at a very rapid clip. Not just amongst humans but for all the animals. This is because it would be impossible for a human being to build an ark big enough, yet alone fill it with a pair of every animal on today's Earth. So the many varieties of cats for instance, came from a single pair of cats, only they evolved very quickly soon after reaching terra firma. Same thing for humans.
Creationists seem to deny evolution prior to the flood but endorse it post flood. Is this just another case of religion taking what is known to science and turning it around for their benefit?
I saw that question once before on another forum. A creationist answered that soon after the Ark went aground that evolution took place at a very rapid clip. Not just amongst humans but for all the animals. This is because it would be impossible for a human being to build an ark big enough, yet alone fill it with a pair of every animal on today's Earth. So the many varieties of cats for instance, came from a single pair of cats, only they evolved very quickly soon after reaching terra firma. Same thing for humans.
Creationists seem to deny evolution prior to the flood but endorse it post flood. Is this just another case of religion taking what is known to science and turning it around for their benefit?
That is a lie. Why do you have to lie to protect your beliefs? Are they so fragile that a small breeze could knock them over?
It's highly doubtful the theory of evolution will be discarded for religious dogma, in fact, it won't.
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
No I'm afraid not. The NT is the fulfillment of the old. So the whole bible has everything we need to know. But unfortunately, most men want to pretend they know better than God. So they reject His truth and make up their own just so they can throw out their own theories and keep replacing them with new ones just to throw them out again. They play this little game until they die and all their theories will be meaningless.
*************
M*W: As he should be.
Sorry but it already has been here:
(AgapePress) - More than 500 scientists have signed a statement expressing their doubts about the credibility of Darwinian evolution. As signatories of "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," these scientists are expressing skepticism about claims of evidence for the theory of evolution.
Rob Crowther with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says Darwin's theory is being increasingly challenged by emerging scientific evidence.
"As time goes on and as we make new discoveries in science," Crowther notes, "and as we find out more information about molecular biology and about DNA and the genome and these things, we're beginning to see that the explanations that Darwin put forward -- with natural selection and random mutation being the mechanism of how life evolved -- just doesn't seem to be the case."
The list was started five years ago, the Discovery Institute spokesman explains, back when Darwinists claimed there were virtually no reputable scientists who disagreed with the theory of evolution. Originally published in 2001, the list carries the names of scientific scholars and researchers from prestigious universities and research centers throughout the U.S. and the world.
Many of the dissenters on the list hold degrees from institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Smithsonian Institute and some that have memberships in well-respected national academies of science as well, Crowther points out.
"We have a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science who has signed the list," the Discovery Institute spokesman says. Also, he notes, "We have two members from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Czech Republic, Hungary and elsewhere around the world. These are important because National Academy members are elected by their fellow scientists to be members ... and they are the most prominent and prestigious scientists in the world."
According to Crowther, the "Dissent from Darwinism" list was initiated in response to erroneous statements in PBS's "Evolution" series. Signers to date include 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Among these dissenters are scientists holding doctoral degrees in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines."
So what was the point of your scripture quotes?:bugeye: You never said.