[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Cygnus]

Good thing. If that happened, evolutionary theory would be falsified. A long line of intermediate forms would be required for that to happen. Fortunately, there is a very long and detailed series of transitional forms connecting quadrupeds and whales. Would you like to learn about those?

There is also excellent refutations to you so-called list. Perhaps you have never seen them.

Just for the record, I'm still waiting to see how evolutionism allows extremely rare so-called BENEFICIAL mutation to occur in just the right place at just the right time to produce the dolphin.

The claim is that it does....but it has never been demonstrated to be possible.

 

[Cygnus]

It comes down to evidence. And the evidence, from several completely different kinds of information, shows they have a common ancestor. Genetics, fossil record, chromosome counts, and so on, all show that humans and chimps have a common ancestor.



I know you want to believe that. But neither scripture nor evidence supports your assumption.

You may want to argue it shows common ancestor....but the better argument is that it shows common CREATOR. What the biblical evidence and biological evidence suggest.

But, go ahead and filter your bible through the ever changing facts of evolutionism.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It comes down to evidence. And the evidence, from several completely different kinds of information, shows they have a common ancestor. Genetics, fossil record, chromosome counts, and so on, all show that humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Common creator yes.....commmon ancestor no.

I know you want to believe that. But neither scripture nor evidence supports your assumption. Why not just let God be God, and do it His way? Once you give up your modern revision to scripture, and accept it as it is, it will trouble you no longer.

 

[Barbarian]

There is also excellent refutations to you so-called list. Perhaps you have never seen them.

Since you don't seem inclined to show them, I guess no one will ever see them.

Just for the record, I'm still waiting to see how evolutionism allows extremely rare so-called BENEFICIAL mutation

Given that every human has dozens of them that were not in either parent, even a population of 10,000 people, would have a dozen of them every generation, even if they were only 1 in 10,000 mutations. Over a hundred generations, that would be over 1,200 favorable mutations. And give that most organism have 10,000 to 50,000 genes, that would be a lot of variation.

As you know, there are now a huge number of transitional whales, from those with functional legs, all the way to modern whales.
But perhaps you can support your assumption by telling us what stage between a four-footed land animal and a dolphin you think would be impossible.

I don't figure you're going to start answering questions at this point, but to be fair, I'll offer you the opportunity. Tell us about it.

 

[turnorburn]

Someone says, "Evolution is not a religion." Evolution IS a religion, because it lacks scientific evidence, thus requiring it's adherents to follow Darwin's theory by FAITH. Evolution is a RELIGIOUS CREED based upon blind faith. There is not in existence one single piece of scientific evidence which proves that man has evolved upward from animals. It is impossible to prove any theory of origins "scientifically," because the very essence of the scientific method is based upon OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, and no scientist has ever observed or experimented with the origin of the universe.

Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account. He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than "evidence" to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored. A fine example of this behavior can be found in the work of Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following:

"When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)

So Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, NOT because it can be proven, but rather because it is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. The evolutionist has gotten himself into a trap where he must spend the rest of his life running from God.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

 

[Barbarian]

Someone says, "Evolution is not a religion."

Creationism is a religion. Evolution is a natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have for it. You might as well call gravity a religion.

Evolution IS a religion, because it lacks scientific evidence, thus requiring it's adherents to follow Darwin's theory by FAITH.

Even honest creationists admit there is a great deal of evidence for evolution. Philip Johnson, who invented "intelligent design", for example, writes that Archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution. Kurt Wise says that a large number of transitional fossils is evidence for evolution. No one who actually knows the issue, says that there's no evidence for it.

Evolution is a RELIGIOUS CREED based upon blind faith.

I know you want to believe this, but even your fellow creationists don't agree with you. God is not neutral in this, BTW:

"Know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

He is Truth. Let Him be God.

 

[Jim Parker]

God created the first man and woman roughly 10,000 years ago.

The Bible is not a science book or a history book. It is the record of God's self-revelation to mankind.
There is abundant and good, hard, evidence of man being around much longer than 10,000 years.
Civilization (not just tribes of hunter-gatherers) have been around longer than 10,000 years ago.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/358139-5-mysterious-ruins-that-predate-known-civilization/

 

[Jim Parker]

Creationism is a religion. Evolution is a natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have for it. You might as well call gravity a religion.

When you're right, you're right.

 

[Barbarian]

Göbekli Tepe, in Turkey is about 12,000 years old, a date that is very well substantiated. There are older structures, however:

Mammoth bone structures:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/mterms/g/mezhirich.htm

 

[Knotical]

The Bible is not a science book or a history book. It is the record of God's self-revelation to mankind.
There is abundant and good, hard, evidence of man being around much longer than 10,000 years.
Civilization (not just tribes of hunter-gatherers) have been around longer than 10,000 years ago.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/358139-5-mysterious-ruins-that-predate-known-civilization/

How can you identify as a Christian and not realize that there are sections of the bible that are historical. Sure, there is no specifically scientific sections of the bible, but when science contradicts the narrative of the bible then we must assume that science is wrong, as the bible is God's Truth.

 

[Jim Parker]

How can you identify as a Christian and not realize that there are sections of the bible that are historical.

Of course there are sections of the Bible that are historical. But the Bible itself is not a history text book.

Sure, there is no specifically scientific sections of the bible, but when science contradicts the narrative of the bible then we must assume that science is wrong, as the bible is God's Truth.

Science does not contradict the Bible.
Science does contradict some peoples' interpretations of the Bible.
The problem arises when people assume that what they think the Bible says is God's truth.

 

[turnorburn]

Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

 

[turnorburn]

Gods word is just that Gods Word.. in the bible we can learn everything we need to know about life and the world we live in. Men come along that disagree with Gods version and set out to devise their own.. always been that way.. always will.. until Jesus returns and puts his foot down...

 

[Jim Parker]

Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his.

From your cited material: "So Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, "
That is false.
Darwin's theory assumed a static state universe of infinite age thereby providing sufficient time for evolution to take place.
Astrophysicists have determined that the universe is only about 14 billion years old and the earth only about 4.5 billion years old. That is not sufficient time for evolution according to Darwin's original theory. So evolutionary theory has been adjusted to accomodate new scientific information.
Your cited source also said: "...Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following: "When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." "
I assume that the words in parentheses, "personal reasons" are the insertion of Dennis Lindsay.

A scientist cannot conclude supernatural creation because a scientist does not deal with SUPERnatural things; he deals with NATURAL things. The supernatural is outside of his field of expertise. It is a philosophical impossibility.

A scientist deals with theories that can be tested and proven to be accurate descriptions of nature or not. Supernatural creation is not subject to scientific investigation. A scientist cannot prove supernatural creation using the scientific method.
God is not part of nature. He is not subject to scientific examination. Studying God by using science is like studying elephants using a paper clip.

That Dennis Lindsay would use such an "illustration" as an example of "evolutionists' religion" suggests to me that Mr. Lindsay just might be an ear-tickler and a fraud.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his.

Odd then, that when flaws in the theory have appeared, "evolutionists" have promptly changed their opinions, and altered the theory to fit the facts. Doesn't sound much like a religion, does it?

 

[Barbarian]

This is what Wald actually wrote:
This is the view that came to be called spontaneous generation. Few scientists doubted it. Aristotle, Newton, William Harvey, Descartes, van Helmont all accepted spontaneous generation without serious inquiry. Indeed, even the theologians- witness the English priest John Turberville Needham- could subscribe to this view, for Genesis tells us, not that God created plants and most animals directly, but that he bade the earth and waters to bring them forth; since this directive was never rescinded, there is nothing heretical in believing that the process has continued...I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.

G. Wald, The Origin of Life August 1954 (pages 44-53) issue of Scientific American.

Wald, it turns out, was just another scientist who was dishonestly quote-mined, and his words changed to fit an agenda.

 

[turnorburn]

From your cited material: "So Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, "
That is false.
Darwin's theory assumed a static state universe of infinite age thereby providing sufficient time for evolution to take place.
Astrophysicists have determined that the universe is only about 14 billion years old and the earth only about 4.5 billion years old. That is not sufficient time for evolution according to Darwin's original theory. So evolutionary theory has been adjusted to accomodate new scientific information.
Your cited source also said: "...Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following: "When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." "
I assume that the words in parentheses, "personal reasons" are the insertion of Dennis Lindsay.

A scientist cannot conclude supernatural creation because a scientist does not deal with SUPERnatural things; he deals with NATURAL things. The supernatural is outside of his field of expertise. It is a philosophical impossibility.

A scientist deals with theories that can be tested and proven to be accurate descriptions of nature or not. Supernatural creation is not subject to scientific investigation. A scientist cannot prove supernatural creation using the scientific method.
God is not part of nature. He is not subject to scientific examination. Studying God by using science is like studying elephants using a paper clip.

That Dennis Lindsay would use such an "illustration" as an example of "evolutionists' religion" suggests to me that Mr. Lindsay just might be an ear-tickler and a fraud.

Your mileage may vary.

evolution is a godless fraud.. its the religion of atheism humanism and communism..

Darwinism: The Evolution of Atheism

If you think creation is a fairy tale, you won’t find much else in the book of Genesis relevant either. You must eventually accept creation as a fact for any of the other great biblical truths — including God’s standards of morality — to be significant in your life.

Indeed, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a daring attempt to make God’s existence unnecessary; evolution really is the origins myth of atheism. It was developed for the purpose of giving humans the freedom to act without accountability to a higher power.

At its very core, atheism balks at the existence of an objective right and wrong. Obviously, not all atheists are ready to commit the evil their beliefs would allow for. However, to the atheistic evolutionist, humans have simply evolved into a society that currently frowns on theft and murder. But we could just as easily evolve into something else, and the result could not objectively be called good or bad. Blood could run in the streets and evolutionists could simply label it as “eliminating the weaker members of the species.”

Is it so surprising then that the horrors of the Holocaust find their underpinnings in the theory of evolution? An examination of the writings of Hitler and other Nazis reveals that Darwinism heavily influenced the policies of WWII Germany. In fact, many people are surprised to learn that the entire title of Darwin’s Origin of Species is: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” (emphasis added). Hitler labeled Jews as an inferior race and less than human, thereby justifying murder, torture, and ghastly human experiments in the name of survival of the fittest. And racism continues today because many people believe that some humans are more highly evolved than others. But racism directly contradicts the Bible, which says God “has made from one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26 KJV).

Ask Richard Dawkins what made him an atheist..

http://www.amazingfacts.org/news-an...t/magazine/id/10786/t/the-bible-and-evolution

 

[turnorburn]

This is what Wald actually wrote:
This is the view that came to be called spontaneous generation. Few scientists doubted it. Aristotle, Newton, William Harvey, Descartes, van Helmont all accepted spontaneous generation without serious inquiry. Indeed, even the theologians- witness the English priest John Turberville Needham- could subscribe to this view, for Genesis tells us, not that God created plants and most animals directly, but that he bade the earth and waters to bring them forth; since this directive was never rescinded, there is nothing heretical in believing that the process has continued...I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.

G. Wald, The Origin of Life August 1954 (pages 44-53) issue of Scientific American.

Wald, it turns out, was just another scientist who was dishonestly quote-mined, and his words changed to fit an agenda.

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

 

[Barbarian]

None of your verses contracts the fact that God says that the earth and waters brought forth life, as He intended.

 

[Jim Parker]

http://www.amazingfacts.org/news-an...t/magazine/id/10786/t/the-bible-and-evolution

"Amazing Facts"? Really??
So you base your beliefs on the teachings of a 7th Day Adventist "prophet."
No wonder you have such an acute and chronic case of Romophobia.