[_ Old Earth _] The churches today agree with Bill Maher...

[Sparkey]

If you ask me, we need all we can get it here.

I think that I have approved 6 new members who were very interested in posting here last week. So then, what impression will our newly registered members have of "us"? Will they contribute more than once and if so, will they be welcomed with arguments or with welcoming? You know what I'm trying to say. Nobody is to blame here, but from here - how do we get to where we wanna be?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

If you ask me, we need all we can get it here.

I think that I have approved 6 new members who were very interested in posting here last week. So then, what impression will our newly registered members have of "us"? Will they contribute more than once and if so, will they be welcomed with arguments or with welcoming? You know what I'm trying to say. Nobody is to blame here, but from here - how do we get to where we wanna be?

6 possible posters? That's promising news!
I think that I remember you using the term "tough skinned". It seems that the remaining frequenters here are of the "tough skinned" sort. I vote that any newcomer who comes out of the gate in a cordial manner should be met with welcome.

Sometimes I'll be viewing one of these threads and see that I am joined in my viewing with a guest or two. The thing is, it could just be a couple of the frequenters who just don't happen to be logged in. Or, it could have been some of those 6 new members that you mentioned.


Okay, Dave. I'm now finished with partaking in the derailing of your thread.

totopic

 

[cupid dave]

Hey Dave

Why don't you go one to one on the debate forum rather tham monopolising all the threads you seem to go on?

Here are you battling it out with Sparrow, and not many others seem to be either interested or care.

Make your case in the one to one forum and battle it out there.

I usually find myself not agreeing with Dave, but I'm glad he's here. There aren't enough members who frequent here. It gets so dead in here sometimes, we're lucky to have a colorfully-worded moderator like Sparrow, who even makes his "moderator-mode" posts interesting and often humorous. Dave's posts are interesting to read sometimes because he is the main guy who we find debating against both popular sides of the argument concerning Evolution of Species.

If you ask me, we need all we can get in here.

Now, if the action ever picks up in here, we can walk Dave out the door and slam it in his face.

No, just kidding.

Aahahahahaaaaaaa...

Many a true word...?
But I agree that most sites have already "moderated" the discussion so well that only the "yes" men are left and they find nothing to discuss.

If I left,there woukd be only the even more tired out and boring, YOU evolutionists against US 6000 year old earth creationists.

I am a synthesis between the theological dialectic of our times, Science Vs Ancient Genesis interpretations.

 

[Sparkey]

YOU evolutionists against US 6000 year old earth creationists.

Just curious. How would you classify me in that black and white dichotomy? No need to respond unless you wanna. I don't see myself as either.

 

[cupid dave]

YOU evolutionists against US 6000 year old earth creationists.

Just curious. How would you classify me in that black and white dichotomy? No need to respond unless you wanna. I don't see myself as either.

I think you told me you are a half N Half, or one who see evolution to mean changes on what you'd call generally a micro-level, but that the Spontaneous Generation of the major branches of the biological Tree of Life all took place on the 3rd day for the Plant Kingdom members and on the 5th and 6th day for the Animal Kingdom Members.

You would say that there were 22 links in the ascent to the modern men who lived to amazingly ripe old ages such as 950 years.
Their relatives all died in the flood.
Only four of these hardy ancestors to us, living today, survived an actual flood of water.

You would say that God does not mention Neanderthal man who inbreed with us, and there is no connection between that science and the story of hybridizations as described in Gen 6:4.

You would have some out of hand explanation for who the "daughters of men" were as opposed to the sons-of-God who married them, and you would never identify the "mighty ones" who were born to those daughters as Neanderthals who were the dominate species until Modern Homo sapiens appeared.

You would say that the 22 now extinct humans described by the paleontologists were just ape, and their ever larger skulls implied no gradual development of a better and better brain.
You would say that these apes who had only 23 chromosomes were little different from the apes who all have 24 chromosomes.
You would say that humans with 23 chromosomes are human, but apes can have 24 pairs or 23 pairs and still both be common apes.

You would say that water flooded the earth to the tops of the mountains, 5miles straight up, about as high modern Jet Liners fly today.

You would say that every animal living today is related genetically to two parents who lived no farther back in time than 6000 years ago.

You would deny modern dating testing, and attribute fossils to creatures that were around 6000 years old when they disappeared forever from the living world of today.

You would insist that god's commandment that all the Plants/Animals should appear means an immediate, Spontaneously Generation, instantaneously, and requires that the read believe that no such process as an orderly evolution was meant.

You would say that there is absolutely no other way to read the plain and simple words in Genesis 1:11:

11 And God said, Let the earth (immediately) bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so, (with a Spontaneous Generation of Grass, every kind of seed, every kind of fruit tree including those now extinct).

 

[Sparkey]

YOU evolutionists against US 6000 year old earth creationists.

Just curious. How would you classify me in that black and white dichotomy? No need to respond unless you wanna. I don't see myself as either.

I think you told me you are a half N Half [Nope, that is what you heard not what I said], or one who see evolution [I doubt that I used the term evolution in regard to my belief, it's possible but I doubt it] to mean changes on what you'd call generally a micro-level [I don't use that term], but that the Spontaneous Generation [Nope, not that term either]of the major branches of the biological Tree of Life [sorry, I don't use that term, have not said that] all took place on the 3rd day for the Plant Kingdom members and on the 5th and 6th day for the Animal Kingdom Members [That may be close to what I believe but I doubt that you could find a quote of me saying that either].

You would say that there were 22 links in the ascent [Never said that, can't say that I would either] to the modern men who lived to amazingly ripe old ages such as 950 years.
Their relatives all died in the flood.
Only four of these hardy ancestors to us, living today, survived an actual flood of water. [Never said that either. Noah and his family? Okay. Only four? I've not said this]

You would say that God does not mention Neanderthal man [I would not say this] who inbreed with us [Never said that either], and there is no connection between that science and the story of hybridizations [those are certainly not my words] as described in Gen 6:4.

You would have some out of hand explanation for who the "daughters of men" were as opposed to the sons-of-God who married them [I can't recall talking about that except to say that Jesus said that angels do not marry], and you would never identify the "mighty ones" who were born to those daughters as Neanderthals who were the dominate species until Modern Homo sapiens appeared [true enough, I've never said that and doubt that I ever will, I think that I'd call them 'giants' or 'mighty men' or possibly 'men of renown,' but only time will tell].

You would say that the 22 now extinct humans described by the paleontologists were just ape [Nope, again not my words and not something I would say. Strange, it sounds like something might think about but not me], and their ever larger skulls implied no gradual development of a better and better brain.
You would say that these apes who had only 23 chromosomes were little different from the apes who all have 24 chromosomes [No. Not something I would say and I have spoken to you about this directly. You even replied].
You would say that humans with 23 chromosomes are human, but apes can have 24 pairs or 23 pairs and still both be common apes [No. But I suspect that you've been talking to yourself about this?].

You would say that water flooded the earth to the tops of the mountains, 5miles straight up, about as high modern Jet Liners fly today [I have said that fossils and sedimentary rock has been found on the very tops of mounts, but I have not said any such thing as you have alleged].

You would say that every animal living today is related genetically to two parents who lived no farther back in time than 6000 years ago [Absolutely not].

You would deny modern dating testing, and attribute fossils to creatures that were around 6000 years old when they disappeared forever from the living world of today [I'm still studying this. Have not reached that conclusion nor would I deny any such thing].

You would insist that god's commandment that all the Plants/Animals should appear means an immediate, Spontaneously Generation [Not my term and no, I would not and do not insist on any such thing. I do insist on one thing but you have not guessed it here], instantaneously, and requires that the read believe that no such process as an orderly evolution was meant.

You would say that there is absolutely no other way to read the plain and simple words in Genesis 1:11:

11 And God said, Let the earth (immediately) bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so, (with a Spontaneous Generation of Grass, every kind of seed, every kind of fruit tree including those now extinct).

[Who are you quoting? It wasn't me!]

Okay, thanks for playing the game, cupid dave. I appreciate your reply. It speaks very clearly.

 

[Asyncritus]

In order to do so, I propose the theory that the Days of Creation are days on which the orders were given, in the form 'Let there be...'

the next bit 'and it was so' took however long it took to bring that about, millions of years or otherwise.

I agree with this.
That satisfies the factual information available to the younger generation which can see how science complements the Bible story.

I don't go away, as you suggest, because you are here.

I'm not suggesting you leave. Merely to argue your cases with people who can understand them. I have to say that I have difficulty doing so - hence my suggestion.

Why are you here, on a Science and Christianity Forum if not to show how the Truth emerges from God's word????

I go the other way: I show how Science establishes what Genesis says ie that all things were created just so, mostly. I say 'mostly' because of the enormous amounts of inbuilt, possible variation.

There's no indication that any other group besides humans were created as a single pair - so that's no problem to me.

As the OP in the Mindlessness of Evolution indicated, there is no conceivable way that the human mind, the higher faculties, I mean, could have evolved from the odd ape, chimpanzee or orangutan, or their 'common ancestor'. I don't care how many so-called human species they dig up. They're probably faking a whole lot of them, making lots out of plaster of paris and inventive art work and so on. They've quite a history of that, you know.

It's interesting, isnt it that sapiens tracks were found by Mary Leakey many thousands of years before they should have been any - and were totally ignored?

There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So, according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.219 This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern man evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus.

Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man back to 1.7 million years ago. One of these important finds is the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old, and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_11.html

Which, in my mind at least, casts enormous doubt not only on evolution theory, but also on the dating methods and their results.

But that's another story.

 

[Asyncritus]

Here are some other quotes about these human fossil footprints, which show clearly that true humans (are there any other kinds?) existed millions of year before they really should have been there.

The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a number of famous paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same. White wrote:

Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.220
​

After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from the University of North Carolina made the following comments:

The arch is raised - the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do - and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe … The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms.221
​

AL 666-1: A 2.3-MILLION-YEAR-OLD HUMAN JAW
Fossil AL 666-1 was found in Hadar in Ethiopia, together with A. afarensis fossils. This 2.3-million-year-old jaw bone had features identical to those of Homo sapiens.
AL 666-1 resembled neither the A. afarensis jawbones that were found with it, nor a 1.75-million-year-old Homo habilis jaw. The jaws of these two species, with their narrow and rectangular shapes, resembled those of present-day apes.
Although there is no doubt that AL 666-1 belonged to a "Homo" (human) species, evolutionary paleontologists do not accept this fact. They refrain from making any comment on this, because the jaw is calculated to be 2.3 million years old-in other words, much older than the age they allow for the Homo, or human, race.

​

The AL 666-1, 2.3-million-year-old Homo sapiens (human)

jaw.

Side view of AL 666-1

​

AL 222-1 fossil, an A. afarensis jaw from the same period as AL666-1

AL 222-1- a side view.
​

The side views of the two jaws make the dIfference between the two fossils clearer.

The AL 222-1 jaw protrudes forwards. This is an ape-like feature. But the AL 666-1 jaw on the top is a completely human one.

Examinations of the morphological form of the footprints showed time and again that they had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and moreover, a modern human (Homo sapiens). Russell Tuttle, who also examined the footprints, wrote:

A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans.222
​

Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They were certainly modern people like us.

However, Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in an article in 1990:

In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there had been made by a member of our genus, Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis.223
​

Source:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_11.html

Do have a look at the article.

Sparrow, if you think this should go into another thread, please feel free to move the material.

 

[Adam]

I think it quite inappropriate for one to presume that only they hold a position that science and the bible can agree. There are plenty of people here that don't represent the false dichotomy he claimed exists.

 

[Asyncritus]

I think it quite inappropriate for one to presume that only they hold a position that science and the bible can agree. There are plenty of people here that don't represent the false dichotomy he claimed exists.

Are you referring to me? If so, what false dichotomy are you talking about?

Thx

 

[cupid dave]

Here are some other quotes about these human fossil footprints, which show clearly that true humans (are there any other kinds?) existed millions of year before they really should have been there.

Source:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_11.html

Do have a look at the article.

Pardon me for asking this because I am sure you have made your position clear already, but what is your contention about Genesis in regard to the evidence you assert here that supports your argument against evolution of humans?

Which of the 8 general categories do you place yourself in:

The seven types of creationism:
1) Young Earth creationism
2) Old Earth creationism
3) Day-Age creationism
4) Progressive creationism
5) Gap creationism
6) Intelligent design
7) Theistic evolution
8) Atheist

 

[Adam]

I think it quite inappropriate for one to presume that only they hold a position that science and the bible can agree. There are plenty of people here that don't represent the false dichotomy he claimed exists.

Are you referring to me? If so, what false dichotomy are you talking about?

Thx

I am not.


I am referring to this:

If I left,there woukd be only the even more tired out and boring, YOU evolutionists against US 6000 year old earth creationists.

I am a synthesis between the theological dialectic of our times, Science Vs Ancient Genesis interpretations.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

As the OP in the Mindlessness of Evolution indicated, there is no conceivable way that the human mind, the higher faculties, I mean, could have evolved from the odd ape, chimpanzee or orangutan, or their 'common ancestor'. I don't care how many so-called human species they dig up. They're probably faking a whole lot of them, making lots out of plaster of paris and inventive art work and so on. They've quite a history of that, you know.

What about the correlation of DNA with the findings that existed before the discovery of DNA?

 

[Sparkey]

Which of the 8 general categories do you place yourself in:

Although you've not asked me and since you were so nice as to play the game of guessing I thought I'd give my answer here.

Do you have a 9th category, "None of the above?" I could fit myself in that one rather nicely.

 

[Asyncritus]

As the OP in the Mindlessness of Evolution indicated, there is no conceivable way that the human mind, the higher faculties, I mean, could have evolved from the odd ape, chimpanzee or orangutan, or their 'common ancestor'. I don't care how many so-called human species they dig up. They're probably faking a whole lot of them, making lots out of plaster of paris and inventive art work and so on. They've quite a history of that, you know.

What about the correlation of DNA with the findings that existed before the discovery of DNA?

What do you have in mind?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

As the OP in the Mindlessness of Evolution indicated, there is no conceivable way that the human mind, the higher faculties, I mean, could have evolved from the odd ape, chimpanzee or orangutan, or their 'common ancestor'. I don't care how many so-called human species they dig up. They're probably faking a whole lot of them, making lots out of plaster of paris and inventive art work and so on. They've quite a history of that, you know.

What about the correlation of DNA with the findings that existed before the discovery of DNA?

What do you have in mind?

Like how Carl Linnaeus proposed a classification of plants and animals. Then, Charles Darwin came out with his findings. Then, lo and behold, scientists find 94% commonality of DNA between humans and chimpanzees. DNA is used to solve rapes and murders. It is also used to find out the paternity of a child. This is mainstream science. It works. The scientists of the world keep each other in check.

 

[cupid dave]

Which of the 8 general categories do you place yourself in:

Although you've not asked me and since you were so nice as to play the game of guessing I thought I'd give my answer here.

Do you have a 9th category, "None of the above?" I could fit myself in that one rather nicely.

Then I assume you deny the validity of the other 8?

 

[cupid dave]

Like how Carl Linnaeus proposed a classification of plants and animals. Then, Charles Darwin came out with his findings. Then, lo and behold, scientists find 94% commonality of DNA between humans and chimpanzees. DNA is used to solve rapes and murders. It is also used to find out the paternity of a child. This is mainstream science. It works. The scientists of the world keep each other in check.

So, then, by accepting Darwin's general concepts, and these previous categorizations of life that seem to support evolution, and the recent DNA evidence, you oppose the Creationism of all but the Theistic Evolutionism which I have presented here.


That we both agree to the evolution theories separates us only by relating a correspondence with Genesis.
Is that your position?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Like how Carl Linnaeus proposed a classification of plants and animals. Then, Charles Darwin came out with his findings. Then, lo and behold, scientists find 94% commonality of DNA between humans and chimpanzees. DNA is used to solve rapes and murders. It is also used to find out the paternity of a child. This is mainstream science. It works. The scientists of the world keep each other in check.

So, then, by accepting Darwin's general concepts, and these previous categorizations of life that seem to support evolution, and the recent DNA evidence, you oppose the Creationism of all but the Theistic Evolutionism which I have presented here.


That we both agree to the evolution theories separates us only by relating a correspondence with Genesis.
Is that your position?

My position is that Genesis isn't a science book, and shouldn't be taken as such. However, there are other positions proclaimed in this forum, and I find the discussion interesting. It seems my position has rapidly moved toward that of Adam's(forum member, not Genesis character), even though I don't want to put words in his mouth. I believe I share much of his position, even though I don't share the frequency with which he challenges your claims. I usually just read, and perhaps add my two cents here and there. I totally disagree with your interpretation of Noah's Flood, even though the discussions that you have provoked are interesting to read.

 

[Asyncritus]

What do you have in mind?

Like how Carl Linnaeus proposed a classification of plants and animals. Then, Charles Darwin came out with his findings. Then, lo and behold, scientists find 94% commonality of DNA between humans and chimpanzees. DNA is used to solve rapes and murders. It is also used to find out the paternity of a child. This is mainstream science. It works. The scientists of the world keep each other in check.

You're making a serious mistake here.

If there is 94% commonality in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, what does that really prove? That we are 94% chimps, and chimps are 94% human? Would you stand by that foolish description?

If I point out that all DNA, from whatever species, contain the very same elements (carbon, hydrogen etc etc) does that prove that we are closely related to whales, sequoias and bananas? It proves nothing, besides a common Creator using the same materials and compounds.

DNA is used to identify parenthood IN THE SAME SPECIES. Does that mean that you can correctly extend it into identifying one of your ancestors as a crab louse in the cambrian, a zillion years ago? Don't you see how stupid the whole thing is?

Extrapolation is a wonderful thing, and Mark Twain had some classic,trenchant words to say about the stupidity of the practice. Here they are:

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.

And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen.

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Resemblances prove nothing except that there are resemblances.