What is your justification for believing in a God?

[deluxe]

No. Babies learn the meaning of the words they are taught. Parrots just learn to copy sounds they hear. I've got two of them and they don't understand any of the words they vocalize and it is evident since they never use them in any correct context. One of them says 'good morning' every time I come in the front door, at any time of day. He is not expressing any idea, he is just making a sound. Sometimes the sound is a word and sometimes it is one of the sounds of my cell phone, my microwave, my doorbell, etc.

Well when a baby is going to say the first word da da, it is just a mimic of you repeating it over and over. Then you run to your wife and say he is talking, he said da da. At that point it is just a mimic. But soon after he learns who da da is.

But yes Parrots do mimic, but they can learn words, and talk. The thing we ask a person who has a Parrot is, does it talk?

But this is really getting way from the snakes talking posts.

[Appolinaria]

I've teetered back & forth with this topic lately, however, I've personally come to the conclusion that there is a creator. Everything we know, science & mathematics, is pretty relative... it's like each solar system is a little pocket in the universe with it's own set of rules. It's like dipping a plank into a pond- it's image is distorted.... I think the truths of the universe are distorted here.

 

Just like a thought is behind an idea which materializes, I think our existence had to have an original "thought" so to speak... but I think we are unable of comprehending what this "thought" is... so we have to put it in layman's terms and attribute human like qualities to it... such as the "god" we speak of in the Bible.

 

I think our world is beautiful. It's specific... why do the birds sing? Sure, there are scientific facts such as attracting mates, but it resonates with us as humans.... flowers show magnificent colors, the shade of light at dawn can make us feel something incredible. I once read somewhere that we are attracted to music here on Earth because it's similar to the music in heaven- I don't think the author wanted this to be taken literally, it's symbolic of why we love the beauty around us here... I think every feeling we have here is a glimpse of an eternal feeling- which is why it resonates with us.

 

One of my favorite quotes is from a Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupery; "the stars are beautiful because of a flower that cannot be seen."

 

The more in depth & advanced we get with science, the less explanation we have for what makes us human, why we aren't robots. And that brings us closer to our "maker".... we are creative beings, unlike any other on this planet. We feel love, we create these incredible cities, amazing technologies....

 

So if something made us, we are just like him. We understand his mathematics, his laws, his beauty.

[deluxe]

I've teetered back & forth with this topic lately, however, I've personally come to the conclusion that there is a creator. Everything we know, science & mathematics, is pretty relative... it's like each solar system is a little pocket in the universe with it's own set of rules. It's like dipping a plank into a pond- it's image is distorted.... I think the truths of the universe are distorted here.

 

Just like a thought is behind an idea which materializes, I think our existence had to have an original "thought" so to speak... but I think we are unable of comprehending what this "thought" is... so we have to put it in layman's terms and attribute human like qualities to it... such as the "god" we speak of in the Bible.

 

I think our world is beautiful. It's specific... why do the birds sing? Sure, there are scientific facts such as attracting mates, but it resonates with us as humans.... flowers show magnificent colors, the shade of light at dawn can make us feel something incredible. I once read somewhere that we are attracted to music here on Earth because it's similar to the music in heaven- I don't think the author wanted this to be taken literally, it's symbolic of why we love the beauty around us here... I think every feeling we have here is a glimpse of an eternal feeling- which is why it resonates with us.

 

One of my favorite quotes is from a Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupery; "the stars are beautiful because of a flower that cannot be seen."

 

The more in depth & advanced we get with science, the less explanation we have for what makes us human, why we aren't robots. And that brings us closer to our "maker".... we are creative beings, unlike any other on this planet. We feel love, we create these incredible cities, amazing technologies....

 

So if something made us, we are just like him. We understand his mathematics, his laws, his beauty.

 

Ok I see you have the beginnings , of understanding the big picture.

The point of the bible is to get to know God, and we are made in his image. So we can get to him, very well. So that is not elusive.

 

The justification of a God is supported by the science and observation. The scientists still have their heads in the sand, while the real world is going on around them.

[Realitycheck]

What an absolute lie, taking the knowledge from the people who figured it out and trying to put it under your belt like string theorists. "It exists, therefore it is our knowledge!" What a crock. Any righteous, sensible man can see through your pointless subterfuge. And this talk of Lucifer speaking through the serpent is only your own testimony adding to the notion that the Jews were schizophrenic as a result of their experience with the tree of knowledge, seeing how that has been a hot topic in academic circles around Amsterdam in recent years. So we had hyper-superstitious Jews making up (or being instructed by God on, depending on your perspective) all manners on how to live in accordance with God's will in order to be in His favor, but it really just adds up to flimsy superstitious conclusions devised by the oldest men of the families. Back then, the laws governing drug use were substantially more relaxed and so long as you weren't practicing "magic", or should I say superstition, by another word, then you were alright, but let's face it "magic" or should I more appropriately call it superstition is really at the heart of Judaism and if all of the basic important tenets of Judaic religion is derived out of superstition, then why do we even give it the time of day? Because the ten commandments make sense. Don't kill, lie, steal, stare at your neighbor's wife, etc. All pretty succinct and sensible, but we have to say that God said it to really pack it with a punch, to drive it home and reduce chaos amongst the uncivilized monkeys who some how seem to live pretty much just as long as everybody else to the extent that cleaner, less magot infested flesh lengthens our lives(despite the fact that magot-infested diets tend to make our immune systems stronger and ready for just about anything. Lots of protein in insects. Just watch Man vs. Wild (Is he still alive after drinking camel bladders for the reconstituted water?) But that's not enough. So we have to lie about how long we live to really add that sizzle effect, to pack the whole system with the punch, despite the fact that we didn't actually care that much about having a whole bunch of kids to order around and farm the land, making life so much easier in our advanced years of 500, 600, 900! So skip ahead a few hundred years, when people have at least stopped lying about their ancestor's ages and everybody agrees that we have to have a savior, because the Jews have flip-flopped their way into oblivion, but the savior has to be the Jew's savior since they're the ones who invented responsible, God-fearing superstition. Since everybody wants a savior and the king is trying to kill all of the babies and prevent a savior, it only makes sense that some people are going to try to step up to the plate and try. I highly doubt that Jesus was completely oblivious to the fact that people were trying to have a savior, what with all of the other contestants in that day and age. So he just did his best, got lucky here and there, and the rest is history. Sometimes healing people is as easy as smiling at them and changing their attitude. He didn't have to lie. All of his followers planted the seeds, did everything for him and the rest is history, because everybody really wanted to have a savior. He just rubberstamped the Jews version of history because that's all any body knew, no different than Islam. Just be really good and get lucky. Trust me, this isn't my first rodeo. And what kind of medical professional was actually on the scene to pronounce him dead? If he actually did die forty days later, it sounds like it was a truly horrendous experience, but not totally unbelievable, even without modern medicine.

 

But what is it really all about? People hearing voices coming from snake's mouths, sweet nothings that really don't add up to anything, whether it's coming from a snake's lips, or a lightning bolt jolting your conscience while you happened to be talking about something in particular, or a gust of air, or a plague, or whatever. Just give a reason to attach it to and it was history. If it just happened to make sense and be the right thing to do (which really isn't that hard to do given the accumulated wisdom of a few thousand years of human civilization), then you can say that God told you and contribute to the Bible or whatever. After a certain time, they quit taking submissions for improvements, but I hear that the Catholics are at least open to new ideas.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Realitycheck

[deluxe]

What an absolute lie, taking the knowledge from the people who figured it out and trying to put it under your belt like string theorists. "It exists, therefore it is our knowledge!" What a crock. Any righteous, sensible man can see through your pointless subterfuge. And this talk of Lucifer speaking through the serpent is only your own testimony adding to the notion that the Jews were schizophrenic as a result of their experience with the tree of knowledge, seeing how that has been a hot topic in academic circles around Amsterdam in recent years. So we had hyper-superstitious Jews making up (or being instructed by God on, depending on your perspective) all manners on how to live in accordance with God's will in order to be in His favor, but it really just adds up to flimsy superstitious conclusions devised by the oldest men of the families. Back then, the laws governing drug use were substantially more relaxed and so long as you weren't practicing "magic", or should I say superstition, by another word, then you were alright, but let's face it "magic" or should I more appropriately call it superstition is really at the heart of Judaism and if all of the basic important tenets of Judaic religion is derived out of superstition, then why do we even give it the time of day? Because the ten commandments make sense. Don't kill, lie, steal, stare at your neighbor's wife, etc. All pretty succinct and sensible, but we have to say that God said it to really pack it with a punch, to drive it home and reduce chaos amongst the uncivilized monkeys who some how seem to live pretty much just as long as everybody else to the extent that cleaner, less magot infested flesh lengthens our lives(despite the fact that magot-infested diets tend to make our immune systems stronger and ready for just about anything. Lots of protein in insects. Just watch Man vs. Wild (Is he still alive after drinking camel bladders for the reconstituted water?) But that's not enough. So we have to lie about how long we live to really add that sizzle effect, to pack the whole system with the punch, despite the fact that we didn't actually care that much about having a whole bunch of kids to order around and farm the land, making life so much easier in our advanced years of 500, 600, 900! So skip ahead a few hundred years, when people have at least stopped lying about their ancestor's ages and everybody agrees that we have to have a savior, because the Jews have flip-flopped their way into oblivion, but the savior has to be the Jew's savior since they're the ones who invented responsible, God-fearing superstition. Since everybody wants a savior and the king is trying to kill all of the babies and prevent a savior, it only makes sense that some people are going to try to step up to the plate and try. I highly doubt that Jesus was completely oblivious to the fact that people were trying to have a savior, what with all of the other contestants in that day and age. So he just did his best, got lucky here and there, and the rest is history. Sometimes healing people is as easy as smiling at them and changing their attitude. He didn't have to lie. All of his followers planted the seeds, did everything for him and the rest is history, because everybody really wanted to have a savior. He just rubberstamped the Jews version of history because that's all any body knew, no different than Islam. Just be really good and get lucky. Trust me, this isn't my first rodeo. And what kind of medical professional was actually on the scene to pronounce him dead? If he actually did die forty days later, it sounds like it was a truly horrendous experience, but not totally unbelievable, even without modern medicine.

 

But what is it really all about? People hearing voices coming from snake's mouths, sweet nothings that really don't add up to anything, whether it's coming from a snake's lips, or a lightning bolt jolting your conscience while you happened to be talking about something in particular, or a gust of air, or a plague, or whatever. Just give a reason to attach it to and it was history. If it just happened to make sense and be the right thing to do (which really isn't that hard to do given the accumulated wisdom of a few thousand years of human civilization), then you can say that God told you and contribute to the Bible or whatever. After a certain time, they quit taking submissions for improvements, but I hear that the Catholics are at least open to new ideas.

Many think like this today. The only way to come to a conclusion like this is to ignore, the evidence. There is plenty of evidence, for a creator.( the science proves creation) It is only the interpretations of the scientists that some have trouble with it.

I give evidence from the science, to show how the scientific interpretations are wrong. As talking animals , we see that all the time today. There are movies , tv shows, there are stage acts. But everyone knows that man used tricks to do that. An invisible being , could the very same thing.

 

 

What this is really about, is the science. The scientists have interpreted the science one way, creationist interpret it another. Which is accurate? What do we see today, what do fossils show? What does archeology say, etc etc.

I say all the science justifies believing in creation. Also that the bible justifies believing in the creator, as his word. But I use the scientific evidence.

[ponderer]

you are able to prove god exists, and yet with each post you do little more than waffle around repeating yourself instead of simply doing it. I wonder why that is.

 

Even after I have explained why.

 

(shakes head)

[iNow]

Even after I have explained why.

 

(shakes head)

 

I presume all of these other posts were simply you're way of saying, "Even though I claim I can, I truly cannot prove that god exists."

 

 

 

Finding God is not like finding Santa Claus. You know what Santa Claus looks like and you know what you expect to find. Do you know what God looks like and what you expect to find? It's not like Where's Waldo.

 

Now you know how I justify my belief in God.

 

 

I have no delusions. I know for a fact that God exists. Your problem is that you don't. What I am saying is well founded. I just haven't explained it to you. I told you I found God. You have heard many times that people have found religion, or that they found God, and you think this is what I mean. This is not what I mean. I have no intentions of further explaining to you or anyone else. You have to find God on your own.

 

I think we're probably done here. You have no intention whatsoever of doing anything other than making baseless claims and wild assertions.

[deluxe]

Even after I have explained why.

 

(shakes head)

The proof is all around us.

1- life comes from life

2 dogs come from dogs

3 there is design in the life we see.

 

Creation supports these 3 facts

The scientists are at odds with all three of these facts. But haven't been able to prove anything they say about this. Or have any good theories.

So why is it even a question?

[iNow]

The proof is all around us.

1- life comes from life

2 dogs come from dogs

3 there is design in the life we see.

 

Creation supports these 3 facts

The scientists are at odds with all three of these facts. But haven't been able to prove anything they say about this. Or have any good theories.

So why is it even a question?

Ah, yes. Epignosis. I thought your version of bullshit smelled familiar.

[deluxe]

Ah, yes. Epignosis. I thought your version of bullshit smelled familiar.

 

you know, I see my work all over the net now. People realize that what the scientists are saying, has no evidence to it. It is about time people should wise up to the scientists, stories.

You do agree it is the evidence, we should be looking at?

[Realitycheck]

The proof is all around us.

1- life comes from life

2 dogs come from dogs

3 there is design in the life we see.

 

Creation supports these 3 facts

The scientists are at odds with all three of these facts. But haven't been able to prove anything they say about this. Or have any good theories.

So why is it even a question?

Despite the fact that you won't find any fossils of blondes more than 10,000 years old, or humans that are ten million years old, or dinosaurs that are 400 million years old, or eukaryotes that are a billion years old. They all just appeared out of nowhere, fell out of the sky? The chain of events is there. Little changes take time. An animal eats something toxic, happens all of the time. 999,999 times out of a million, it just makes them sick to their stomach, but once it barely alters their genetic code, because that's what toxins do. More likely is the chance that it alters the code subtly in a less meaningful way. And then one out of a million times that this happens, something beneficial happens, pretty rarely, as blonde hair really does't convey much genetic advantage, but nevertheless, it happened, and you can't deny it, otherwise 1/3 of the world's population would be blonde.

 

And through this constant, gradual change, we have genetic diversity, which multiplies itself, gradually changing everything. After all 500 million years is a lot of seconds, minutes, weeks, and months.

[deluxe]

Despite the fact that you won't find any fossils of blondes more than 10,000 years old, or humans that are ten million years old, or dinosaurs that are 400 million years old, or eukaryotes that are a billion years old. They all just appeared out of nowhere, fell out of the sky? The chain of events is there. Little changes take time. An animal eats something toxic, happens all of the time. 999,999 times out of a million, it just makes them sick to their stomach, but once it barely alters their genetic code, because that's what toxins do. More likely is the chance that it alters the code subtly in a less meaningful way. And then one out of a million times that this happens, something beneficial happens, pretty rarely, as blonde hair really does't convey much genetic advantage, but nevertheless, it happened, and you can't deny it, otherwise 1/3 of the world's population would be blonde.

 

And through this constant, gradual change, we have genetic diversity, which multiplies itself, gradually changing everything. After all 500 million years is a lot of seconds, minutes, weeks, and months.

Well this is the point, where is the evidence of that?

If small little changes eventually make new animals, where are all the almost humans? And where are all the almost humans that are no longer human? There should be many of these around? This is only an idea, without evidence. The evidence we do see, is dogs come from dogs ( though there is a variety of dogs)

Humans come from humans. We have never seen life come that from non life. We understand creation, though , we see that man can create things using the materials of the earth and making something from that. (which design)

Even if scientists make life in a lab, that will be creation. Which supports only creation.

The creation account doesn't say everything fell out of the sky. It says they were created with intelligence and design. So much so that even after many years of research scientists still can not do it.

The scientists say, life slowly came from the ground without any creation involved. That is like me saying, a Harley should just appear one day in my driveway. After all it's been a billion years. Man has used the earth to build Harley's, but can't make a man. Harley's must be easier to make. So what makes more sense to you that the Harley was created or just happened? Same with a loaf of bread.

 

So the scientists should at least, look to the evidence we have.

[Realitycheck]

What evidence do you have that the scientists didn't give you? They are infinitely more experienced, infinitely more qualified, infinitely more authoritative, and you would try to use their knowledge against them? I have no problem believing in a Higher Power and a grand design and all, but if you don't listen to what they're trying to tell you, you're only banging you're head against the wall. Holding up the Bible and trying to say it happened word for word just won't work. There's too much inefficiency in creation to really make that much of a deal out of it, but whatever floats your boat. If you want to believe in Bishop Usher's version of history, you can do that, at the expense of being very credible in the knowledgeable world. If you want, you can follow all of the pseudomysticists of the world today and be even further separated from reality. Laws are laws, devoid of any divine authority, unless mandated otherwise. In this nation, we chose to separate laws from divinity for a reason, because still, nobody has ever proven an ounce of divinity, despite your claims otherwise. Maybe you've just been looking too hard, seeing mirages and all. The only God I could ever believe in wouldn't want to have any power, to create brand new animals out of thin air or punish heathen nations or reward people for sacrificing animals or whatever.

 

...

 

...

 

Now I see why many people tire of explaining every single detail whatsoever.

 

We have Native Americans, Caucasians, Negroids, Orientals ... what were you trying to say?

 

Just because we don't have men the size of giraffes doesn't really mean anything. Hummingbirds are all pretty much the same size.

 

Just because we don't have men the size of giraffes doesn't really mean anything. Hummingbirds are all pretty much the same size.

 

Ohh, and where all of the almost humans? They were mostly blended into the same group or died off because they were intellectually or physically inferior and unable to compete in a primitive, competitive world. Less able to run fast or shape flints or grow crops or whatever. If they could have communicated, they possibly could have caught on and maintained and blended into the surviving group, which happened, to an extent, but mostly they were dying in the cold, too far from substenance, while those nearer the equator flourished. Hence, we primarily came from Africa. Somewhere along the way, somebody figured out how to make a fire or skin a fur, you know, the usual basic stuff.

[deluxe]

What evidence do you have that the scientists didn't give you? They are infinitely more experienced, infinitely more qualified, infinitely more authoritative, and you would try to use their knowledge against them? I have no problem believing in a Higher Power and a grand design and all, but if you don't listen to what they're trying to tell you, you're only banging you're head against the wall. Holding up the Bible and trying to say it happened word for word just won't work. There's too much inefficiency in creation to really make that much of a deal out of it, but whatever floats your boat. If you want to believe in Bishop Usher's version of history, you can do that, at the expense of being very credible in the knowledgeable world. If you want, you can follow all of the pseudomysticists of the world today and be even further separated from reality. Laws are laws, devoid of any divine authority, unless mandated otherwise. In this nation, we chose to separate laws from divinity for a reason, because still, nobody has ever proven an ounce of divinity, despite your claims otherwise. Maybe you've just been looking too hard, seeing mirages and all. The only God I could ever believe in wouldn't want to have any power, to create brand new animals out of thin air or punish heathen nations or reward people for sacrificing animals or whatever.

 

...

 

...

 

Now I see why many people tire of explaining every single detail whatsoever.

 

We have Native Americans, Caucasians, Negroids, Orientals ... what were you trying to say?

 

Just because we don't have men the size of giraffes doesn't really mean anything. Hummingbirds are all pretty much the same size.

 

Just because we don't have men the size of giraffes doesn't really mean anything. Hummingbirds are all pretty much the same size.

 

Ohh, and where all of the almost humans? They were mostly blended into the same group or died off because they were intellectually or physically inferior and unable to compete in a primitive, competitive world. Less able to run fast or shape flints or grow crops or whatever. If they could have communicated, they possibly could have caught on and maintained and blended into the surviving group, which happened, to an extent, but mostly they were dying in the cold, too far from substenance, while those nearer the equator flourished. Hence, we primarily came from Africa. Somewhere along the way, somebody figured out how to make a fire or skin a fur, you know, the usual basic stuff.

Yes that's true the scientists have done allot of work in this. And found out a lot of information. But they interpret the science found just like others do. it's not the science found it is the interpretation. They are reading into something with out the evidence to back it up. it's also not that the scientists need evry detail they need something to support their interpretations. That is what they lack. The jumped on the Darwin band wagon, and have been going down the wrong road ever since.

As for the humans, there are no almost humans and there never was. An ape to a human is a huge leap. Not little steps. And if there were any almost humans, they would have been made slaves by us, used in hard labor. It would the opposite of the Planet of the Apes.

 

 

We have Native Americans, Caucasians, Negroids, Orientals ... what were you trying to say?

That they are all human. There are no almost humans, or humans that were human but are no longer. There is breeding, natural selection, adaptation, and mutations. This gives variety in humans, but they are still human. This is the evidence we have. That goes for animals also.

If you combine this with the start to life, you see that the scientists, have no evidence for either the start to life or 'evolution'.

 

So the justification of believing in God comes from the science as well, as the bible, and history.

[Moontanman]

Yes that's true the scientists have done allot of work in this. And found out a lot of information. But they interpret the science found just like others do. it's not the science found it is the interpretation. They are reading into something with out the evidence to back it up. it's also not that the scientists need evry detail they need something to support their interpretations. That is what they lack.

 

No they don't, where do you get this misinformation?

 

The jumped on the Darwin band wagon, and have been going down the wrong road ever since.

 

Quite the contrary, science started out assuming the bible was literally true but absolutely nothing they found backed up anything in the bible...

 

As for the humans, there are no almost humans and there never was. An ape to a human is a huge leap. Not little steps. And if there were any almost humans, they would have been made slaves by us, used in hard labor. It would the opposite of the Planet of the Apes.

 

It's religion that lacks the evidence not science, you are so far off the mark, ape to human was indeed little steps, fossils are there. we have them and literally thousands of transitional fossils too.

 

That they are all human. There are no almost humans, or humans that were human but are no longer. There is breeding, natural selection, adaptation, and mutations. This gives variety in humans, but they are still human. This is the evidence we have. That goes for animals also.

 

Absolutely false...

 

If you combine this with the start to life, you see that the scientists, have no evidence for either the start to life or 'evolution'.

 

So the justification of believing in God comes from the science as well, as the bible, and history.

 

 

So all of science, paleontology, history, physics, astronomy, chemistry, are all wrong and are just lies made up to discredit the bible? Are you looking for a Crocoduck? BTW, you'll find those almost humans in the fossil record, oh wait, that just a lie to discredit... well you know.... it would be so easy to totally bring down evolution, I mean so very easy, but so far no one has been able to do it, not even almost, can you image the fame the person who found a bunny rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would have?

Edited October 12, 2011 by Moontanman

[Realitycheck]

So then tell us where you think all of the animals came from at all the different times or do you think that carbon dating is a lie or do you think that Noah's story was representative of a doomsday story from another planet or what? And please, don't skimp on the details. As far as I can tell you need to provide lots of details in a really short time about how and why all the animals were delivered to this world at the same time in order to give it any credibility. I don't see it happening. If you're just going to use what's in the Bible, you can save your time, but if you have your own pet theory, let's see what you've got.

 

Oh, and yes, it was late, I was tired, my arguments were not as well constructed as I would have liked. I don't think I made any really big errors but if you want to twist things around to try and suit your cause, then so be it. I just want to hear some answers about when God created all of these animals, just how many did he create, how did he fit ALL of them into the ark, etc., and make sure it all adds up, or I'm pretty sure somebody will catch it. (Can you imagine living within a closed vehicle for 40 days with elephants, giraffes, bison, etc.? I think I want to tally up a total of animals for good measure.)

[Moontanman]

So then tell us where you think all of the animals came from at all the different times or do you think that carbon dating is a lie or do you think that Noah's story was representative of a doomsday story from another planet or what? And please, don't skimp on the details. As far as I can tell you need to provide lots of details in a really short time about how and why all the animals were delivered to this world at the same time in order to give it any credibility. I don't see it happening. If you're just going to use what's in the Bible, you can save your time, but if you have your own pet theory, let's see what you've got.

 

Oh, and yes, it was late, I was tired, my arguments were not as well constructed as I would have liked. I don't think I made any really big errors but if you want to twist things around to try and suit your cause, then so be it. I just want to hear some answers about when God created all of these animals, just how many did he create, how did he fit ALL of them into the ark, etc., and make sure it all adds up, or I'm pretty sure somebody will catch it. (Can you imagine living within a closed vehicle for 40 days with elephants, giraffes, bison, etc.? I think I want to tally up a total of animals for good measure.)

 

 

Don't forget the dinosaurs dude, everything from t-rex to velocoraptors and brachiosaurs, literally millions of species....

[deluxe]

No they don't, where do you get this misinformation?

 

 

 

Quite the contrary, science started out assuming the bible was literally true but absolutely nothing they found backed up anything in the bible...

 

 

 

It's religion that lacks the evidence not science, you are so far off the mark, ape to human was indeed little steps, fossils are there. we have them and literally thousands of transitional fossils too.

 

 

 

Absolutely false...

 

 

 

 

So all of science, paleontology, history, physics, astronomy, chemistry, are all wrong and are just lies made up to discredit the bible? Are you looking for a Crocoduck? BTW, you'll find those almost humans in the fossil record, oh wait, that just a lie to discredit... well you know.... it would be so easy to totally bring down evolution, I mean so very easy, but so far no one has been able to do it, not even almost, can you image the fame the person who found a bunny rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would have?

 

It is one thing to find a fossil and say it comes from a certain animal. It is another to say how it came about. One is science the other is interpretation.

 

There are no transitional fossils. They would be the ones where are the parts would be development. ( partially formed, not in the right places, they would be horrendous looking life)

 

The bible and science are in harmony. It is only the scientists, you have to be careful of. I'm not saying the science is wrong, but the interpretation of the scientists that support non creation and 'evolution' are wrong. They have no evidence that their theories have any credability. It is not scientific.

[imatfaal]

It is one thing to find a fossil and say it comes from a certain animal. It is another to say how it came about. One is science the other is interpretation.

 

There are no transitional fossils. They would be the ones where are the parts would be development. ( partially formed, not in the right places, they would be horrendous looking life)

 

 

This is just plain incorrect. You can get away with sweeping statements like the above in a faith based knowledge system - but in a rational system, when you make statements of fact, you need to back up claims with some evidence.

 

Here is a link to a page at the University of the Witwatersrand detailing the discovery, morphology and dating for Australopithecus Sediba. This is an unusual early hominid because it was found in Southern Africa not in Eastern Africa - but it is still an excellent candidate for early homonins

[deluxe]

This is just plain incorrect. You can get away with sweeping statements like the above in a faith based knowledge system - but in a rational system, when you make statements of fact, you need to back up claims with some evidence.

 

Here is a link to a page at the University of the Witwatersrand detailing the discovery, morphology and dating for Australopithecus Sediba. This is an unusual early hominid because it was found in Southern Africa not in Eastern Africa - but it is still an excellent candidate for early homonins

Because animals look like other animals does not mean they came from one another. This is easy to explain. A creator would create an animal. . because he is going to create millions of animals some very similar to others, why would he start over from scratch every time? Because he uses intelligence and planing, he could make a life and change the DNA a little and create life that is similar to others.

Scientists do this all the time in programing. For example you create DNA for material like teeth, then program the shape and placement of the teeth. In the next animal the material is the same, but the placement and shape maybe a little different.

Can we mate with that find?

[imatfaal]

Deluxe - you said "There are no transitional fossils", I provided an example. Which bit of that do you disagree with?

 

I never mentioned DNA, neither creators nor lack of them cropped up in my post, and there was no mention of teeth - so why do you bring them up? I was not asking for an explanation of why that hominin looks as it does; I already have a rational explanation I believe, just as you have a faith-based one. I don't know if we could mate with that creature, I would strongly suspect no - but again what does that have to do with your initial assertion that I showed to be false?

 

I do not care that you choose to believe in a faith-based narrative - what I do care deeply about is you making unwarranted and incorrect statements about the body of scientific knowledge.

Edited October 12, 2011 by imatfaal

[Moontanman]

Deluxe, i know you will refuse to even consider it but you've been lied to, some one or a group of some ones have filled you with lies and misrepresented facts, I have no problem with ignorance, we are all ignorant of somethings, no one knows everything and even of the things we do know there are some errors but you have been grossly mislead. I suggest you watch this series of videos with a critical mind and see how badly you have been misused by the people who lied to you

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/0/KnJX68ELbAY

 

I know I am probably wasting my time but i like to help anyone who is really seeking knowledge.

[deluxe]

Deluxe, i know you will refuse to even consider it but you've been lied to, some one or a group of some ones have filled you with lies and misrepresented facts, I have no problem with ignorance, we are all ignorant of somethings, no one knows everything and even of the things we do know there are some errors but you have been grossly mislead. I suggest you watch this series of videos with a critical mind and see how badly you have been misused by the people who lied to you

 

http://www.youtube.c...C/0/KnJX68ELbAY

 

I know I am probably wasting my time but i like to help anyone who is really seeking knowledge.

 

The first video he basically that creationist are just followers of something, without checking things out. But he didn't mention that it takes many years of schooling and peer pressure, to believe in 'evolution'. For that average person never sees 'evolution' work. What we see is that

 

1 life comes from life

2 humans come from humans

3 there is design in the life we see.

These 3 staements are facts. we see that every day.

 

If there is something you think is correct, in any of the the video's bring it out to me and then we will discuss it.

Other wise I don't know which parts of those video's you think is correct.

[Moontanman]

The first video he basically that creationist are just followers of something, without checking things out. But he didn't mention that it takes many years of schooling and peer pressure, to believe in 'evolution'. For that average person never sees 'evolution' work. What we see is that

 

1 life comes from life

2 humans come from humans

3 there is design in the life we see.

These 3 staements are facts. we see that every day.

 

If there is something you think is correct, in any of the the video's bring it out to me and then we will discuss it.

Other wise I don't know which parts of those video's you think is correct.

 

 

You obviously did not watch the entire video or any of the rest, i suggest you do, all of your assertions have been debunked so many times on this forum it's difficult to count them, i will not repeat them here for some one who would rather believe in lies over evidence no matter what. Glory in your ignorance, it's sad but I can't make you drink from the well of knowledge i can only show it to you...

 

I should have known, why do i let myself get caught up in this male bovine excrement topic....

[imatfaal]

Nice vids Moontanman - saw them a while ago and good to rewatch. Deluxe you really should try to watch them all - and not just dip in to the first one.