@ghost-of-a-duke saidWell, I look at your pixie example is there anything in this life that suggest I should consider the pixie. The pixie have a finger print in the world like followers, there somethings in the world that suggest that the pixie be given credit for anything, predictions, miracles that the pixie has been given credit for. I don't see anything that would promote giving the credit to the pixie so I reject it.
In the example I gave, 'I know the world didn't begin as a result of a giant pixie having a sneeze.'
1. Do you also discount this possibility?
2. If so, how is that any different from me discounting the Christian creation story?
The Christian creation story has laid out time lines, causes and results we see today, it has in it a linage from God creating Adam up to Jesus Christ, the OT story is part of the whole story. It isn't just this occurred at the beginning, it take our word for it, just like everything you promote in "abiogenesis" and "evolution" without being able to show how and why, those theories where all of it is millions of years ago, and cannot be seen today due to technical difficulties, it occurs so far back and that it moves so slow no one can see it. We see the many races that can trace their roots back to OT scripture, the history of many people are tied up in the OT too. We have found historical evidence of people from those time period. The list goes on and on.
Your evidence for example taking fossils are filled with just so stories, unlike documented events in scripture. You have time periods where life forms appear and disappear, other time periods of where other creatures appear and disappear, all of these fully formed, today we don't see strings of life forms slightly related to one another because evolution takes one and changes them over time in very small alterations the world should be filled with them if evolution were true. What we do see are unique life that are not all related to one another as if they were created and had off spring that didn't mate with each other like the creation story says, instead of these small changes over time affecting all life.
That fits more with the Biblical narrative than evolutionary thought, and we can go back to my favorite, God accounts for all of the questions of beginning and why.
30 Jun 19
@suzianne saidYell at Duke it was his example I was responding too.
@KellyJay to @Suzianne
"Did you read what I wrote?"
Did you?
Seriously.
"You can only discount anything with some knowledge as to why. If two school kids were debating the square root of 23458 and knew nothing of the math required to get to the real answer, how would they know the answer wasn't 6?"
If two schoolkids knew nothing of the math require ...[text shortened]... der, and many 5th graders.
Even though they know nothing of how to calculate square roots.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
30 Jun 19
@kellyjay said"I don't see anything that would promote giving the credit to the pixie so I reject it."
Well, I look at your pixie example is there anything in this life that suggest I should consider the pixie. The pixie have a finger print in the world like followers, there somethings in the world that suggest that the pixie be given credit for anything, predictions, miracles that the pixie has been given credit for. I don't see anything that would promote giving the credit ...[text shortened]... ught, and we can go back to my favorite, God accounts for all of the questions of beginning and why.
Fair enough. In the same vein, I don't see anything that would promote giving the credit to the Christian God, nor do I consider the 'documented events in scripture' as having any credibility or sway. (Whatsoever). Fossils, on the other hand, are tangible evidence of our evolutionary journey. (Whether you like it or not).
30 Jun 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidFossils don’t have name tags on them that tell us anything about them so we attempt to figure it out ourselves. You are trusting in our “just so stories” on fossils. Someone finds some fossilized rock and comes up with a story about them. Now they can say all of these fossils in this new find belong to a creature, or two creatures, or three. They can be proven wrong how? The truth is where in this, just what people claim?
"I don't see anything that would promote giving the credit to the pixie so I reject it."
Fair enough. In the same vein, I don't see anything that would promote giving the credit to the Christian God, nor do I consider the 'documented events in scripture' as having any credibility or sway. (Whatsoever). Fossils, on the other hand, are tangible evidence of our evolutionary journey. (Whether you like it or not).
God has touched us in time, but you don’t accept scripture as is. You have to change the meaning to come up with with a different God in the OT than the NT. If you didn’t alter the Word you would see a consistent theme throughout both testaments, instead of the distorted version you have now.
So fossils are proof for you as people come up with what they think, and written words are not trusted.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou can prove my point if you like, in order to dismiss any claim something must be known about it! I agree that with knowledge about mathematics one can dismiss some claims because there is knowledge. You have nothing on the creation or the beginning of the universe, so saying God did not do it is based on what? Just your refusal to acknowledge God might be real!
It was not the example she was 'yelling' at but your handling of it.
😲
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
@kellyjay saidGod is 'your' explanation. I fully reject that. And again, not having a complete explanation of my own doesn't elevate yours. Far better not to know than to simply make stuff up. Religion is just man's attempt to fashion answers to questions beyond his reach and understanding.
You can prove my point if you like, in order to dismiss any claim something must be known about it! I agree that with knowledge about mathematics one can dismiss some claims because there is knowledge. You have nothing on the creation or the beginning of the universe, so saying God did not do it is based on what? Just your refusal to acknowledge God might be real!
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
@kellyjay saidSorry kelly but this really is beyond funny. You label fossils as “just so stories” and biblical accounts such as the great flood and Exodus as documented evidence.
Fossils don’t have name tags on them that tell us anything about them so we attempt to figure it out ourselves. You are trusting in our “just so stories” on fossils. Someone finds some fossilized rock and comes up with a story about them. Now they can say all of these fossils in this new find belong to a creature, or two creatures, or three. They can be proven wrong how? The ...[text shortened]... fossils are proof for you as people come up with what they think, and written words are not trusted.
And it is not some bloke from the pub who studies these fossils but experts in their field providing compelling and observable evidence. (Globally).
30 Jun 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo you KNOW there is no doubt no room for error in what you think fossils are?
Sorry kelly but this really is beyond funny. You label fossils as “just so stories” and biblical accounts such as the great flood and Exodus as documented evidence.
And it is not some bloke from the pub who studies these fossils but experts in their field providing compelling and observable evidence. (Globally).
It isn't beyond funny it is exactly how I have described it to you, at best someone is coming up with an explanation you take as what fact or faith?
30 Jun 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidLOL seriously, someone picks up a rock, then claims that used to be something living called this, then they go on this lived so many millions of years ago, then they go on with more claims these were related to these other rocks that used to be living things, and even more claims are made they all are ancestors to what we see today as X. These statements and others are for you factual, and not faith or belief?
God is 'your' explanation. I fully reject that. And again, not having a complete explanation of my own doesn't elevate yours. Far better not to know than to simply make stuff up. Religion is just man's attempt to fashion answers to questions beyond his reach and understanding.
This is not reaching and beyond our understanding and means to know!? The very thing you claim is wrong with religion is what you are putting your hope into, while you reject written accounts. You can look at a rock and know, and you think religion makes things up!?
30 Jun 19
@kellyjay saidYou know it seems there are almost two distinct groups that evolutionist fall into, at least in my opinion, that seems to make them look for answers of all things in the universe including life here on earth other then in the bible.
So you KNOW there is no doubt no room for error in what you think fossils are?
It isn't beyond funny it is exactly how I have described it to you, at best someone is coming up with an explanation you take as what fact or faith?
It is true that most humans are curious about life on earth and where it all came from and why we came from there.
I know the more I can learn the more I like even knowing it was Jehovah that is behind it all, there are still billions of questions I have about everything out there.
But for a couple reasons I think that some don't want to admit on any level that it was created by a spiritual being whom they can't see.
First would be their extreme doubt in religions because of the misrepresentation they get of God and who he is and don't understand why a so called loving God would do bad things to humans or maybe they feel he's just turned his back on us.
The second would be out or pride. Humans have learned a lot over the last few hundred years. They've discovered much and have made many incredible things that have helped us make our life's better and even a little longer at times.
The bible warned though that many would scoff at people that do believe in God and be prideful in what they've accomplished and refuse to humble themselves to him in arrogance and even deny his existence. So basically they refuse to subject themselves to him which in the end will not go well for them....
30 Jun 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI didn't make up anything on the beginning of the universe, I take what is here.
God is 'your' explanation. I fully reject that. And again, not having a complete explanation of my own doesn't elevate yours. Far better not to know than to simply make stuff up. Religion is just man's attempt to fashion answers to questions beyond his reach and understanding.
Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:
"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."
Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.
"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . .
"No Known Mechanism of Evolution."
It is also a very curious fact that no one understands how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.
"Evolution is . . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery--speciation itself."
One would think that in the 125 years following Darwin, with thousands of trained biologists studying the problem and using millions of dollars worth of complex lab equipment, they would have worked it out by now, but the mechanism which originates new species is still "the central mystery."
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
BY HENRY M. MORRIS, PH.D. | SUNDAY, JUNE 01, 1986
Humm, a mystery but yet fact? How does that work? It doesn't.
30 Jun 19
@divegeester saidI totally agree with you. Natural selection is a process that has to happen to keep all the life on earth as healthy as possible. And yes it can happen rather quickly or else that type of life could end totally.
Firstly, what you are describing is called natural selection through survival of the fittest, and which is an absolutely proven fact of nature.
Secondly, it can happen quite quickly depending on the adaptation involved. For example long hair in a type of dog can be bred out in a generation or two.
“Evolution”as a concept of phenotypical adaptation is essential for ...[text shortened]... uld have to accept creation. The theory of evolution of species does not explain the origin of life.
But adapting is not evolution but just the natural ability Jehovah put in all of us to have that ability to survive if our surroundings change.
Dogs can even be bread to change their looks pretty drastically, but they are still a dog and didn't evolve into something else.
So good comment dude!!!
