Prove to me creationism is real

[Dana]

I'm not even going to attempt to debate. this thread is already 6 pages long. Debates are usually futile because both parties usually have strong beliefs and aren't ever swayed.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Dude.... HAHA. I finally got 'round to reading the rest of the thread. (I had originally stopped on page two).

BB, I salute you sir. You're manning a tall ship, and it's good to see you out here on such a fine morning. The fleet seems to be assembled. You all are doing a fantastic job. :rockon:

After page three I get the sudden irresistible urge to prop my feet up on the table and enjoy the show. It feels good not taking grenades in the trenches all by myself.

I'm off to do my science homework. I'll be back though.

Allow me to also add my commendations to yon Badboy.

Just gotten through the thread myself. The ole set up artist...the very AEF...philosopher extraodinaire, doth pulled a fast one on us here with his opening salvo...."Prove it". And with that, verily disappeared...seemingly that is...incognito so to speak...waiting on the wings like a ninja.....having doth set the bait....the ole sly fox AEF.

My ninja comrade gLing, having remembered my words of earlier politely bowed out but not before leaving a salvo of her own.

The Badboy, ole Bill Nye doth stepped up to the plate...that he did and took the philosopher head on. Go with God speed my friend for verily thou shalt need it. The AEF is a hard nut to crack. Told you once told you a thousand times.

The story continues..............

 

[All Else Failed]

wow...

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

I'm not even going to attempt to debate. this thread is already 6 pages long. Debates are usually futile because both parties usually have strong beliefs and aren't ever swayed.

Ahhhhhh....but that's the fun in it.

 

[All Else Failed]

If anyone is still unfamiliar with the basic tenets of human evolution, they can refer to my link I posted earlier. I've read all of it and its pretty good at explaining things.

How Humans Evolved - Welcome!

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

If anyone is still unfamiliar with the basic tenets of human evolution, they can refer to my link I posted earlier. I've read all of it and its pretty good at explaining things.

How Humans Evolved - Welcome!

I've bookmarked it AEF. Both links. Looks like pretty interesting reading.

I want to read through it properly and digest when I have the time later.

 

[All Else Failed]

I've bookmarked it AEF. Both links. Looks like pretty interesting reading.

I want to read through it properly and digest when I have the time later.

Nice nice. Learning is fun.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Nice nice. Learning is fun.

Yeah. I don't mind.

Hey, I gots to hit the sack now. The ZZZZZZZs are calling. Catch up with you guys in the morn.
Behave now. :ninja

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Meet Your Relatives

Why study primates? By studying primates, we're essentially studying ourselves. The primate order includes humans and our closest living biological relatives,as well as all extinct primate and human ancestors. In addition to providing evolutionary insights into the physiological and behavioral evolution of the human lineage, primates exhibit an extraordinarily diverse array of behaviors and social systems, which allows them to exploit many habitats within the tropics, ranging from savanna-woodland to rain forest. Some species, such as the Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata), have adapted to the snowy winters of the island of Hokkaido. The rather cosmopolitan status that the primate lineage boasts is one of a number of reasons to study their adaptive strategies in the context of evolution. Finally, the cognitive capacity of primates provides a window into the evolution of intelligence, providing deeper insights into the machinery that drives our own behavior and thought processes.


Oh I'm loving this junk:unsure:

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

AEF, where do you stand with this?

Paleolithic Controversies

The preceding descriptions seem clear enough, but underneath the basic classifications lies a major anthropological controversy.

Some scholars believe that the variability seen between African and Asian Homo erectus means that these were completely different species, while others maintain the observed variability merely represents regional diversity. The view that there was more than one species of Homo erectus rests on the notion that the large distance between Asia and Africa reduced gene flow to such an extent that these hominids diverged and formed new species. Alternatively, those who believe there was but a single species of Homo erectus maintain that, while the distances between populations was certainly great, there was not enough time for species-level differentiation to evolve.
The implications this debate has for the emergence of modern Homo sapiens are profound. If there were actually two Homo erectus species, then we only emerged from one of them. Therefore, some anthropologists are convinced that the African fossils should be assigned a new taxonomic classification, Homo ergaster, a label first applied to the 1.6 million year old skeleton of a male juvenile found at East Turkana in Eastern Africa. More controversies along these lines will be addressed in the next chapter.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

OKay,well I breezed through it, kind of crash course like, but hit on the higher point's.

I will say this, it is more consistent with the concept that the earth itself took millions of years to sustain life at the level in which it does now. (A concept I invest in heavily btw).

I do basically side with the evolutionary model to a degree.

HOWEVER, I still think there is room for "Creative Intelligence". Of course if I went into a lot of deatil about my argument, it would possibly take on the task of an entire different thread. (Because it brings up question's of the Bible and its accuracy).

I am not saying that the Bible is not......Something, but I do honestly believe it has been....Altered over years and years and years to fit the need's of the followers and even the originator's.

*ducks*

 

[Peter Parka]

I believe the Bible is kind of like Blind Harry's version of William Wallace. It's by far accurate but is probably the most comprehensive version we have to go on.

 

[All Else Failed]

Meet Your Relatives

Why study primates? By studying primates, we're essentially studying ourselves. The primate order includes humans and our closest living biological relatives,as well as all extinct primate and human ancestors. In addition to providing evolutionary insights into the physiological and behavioral evolution of the human lineage, primates exhibit an extraordinarily diverse array of behaviors and social systems, which allows them to exploit many habitats within the tropics, ranging from savanna-woodland to rain forest. Some species, such as the Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata), have adapted to the snowy winters of the island of Hokkaido. The rather cosmopolitan status that the primate lineage boasts is one of a number of reasons to study their adaptive strategies in the context of evolution. Finally, the cognitive capacity of primates provides a window into the evolution of intelligence, providing deeper insights into the machinery that drives our own behavior and thought processes.


Oh I'm loving this junk:unsure:

I don't see anything wrong with what has been said above?

 

[All Else Failed]

AEF, where do you stand with this?

Paleolithic Controversies

The preceding descriptions seem clear enough, but underneath the basic classifications lies a major anthropological controversy.

Some scholars believe that the variability seen between African and Asian Homo erectus means that these were completely different species, while others maintain the observed variability merely represents regional diversity. The view that there was more than one species of Homo erectus rests on the notion that the large distance between Asia and Africa reduced gene flow to such an extent that these hominids diverged and formed new species. Alternatively, those who believe there was but a single species of Homo erectus maintain that, while the distances between populations was certainly great, there was not enough time for species-level differentiation to evolve.
The implications this debate has for the emergence of modern Homo sapiens are profound. If there were actually two Homo erectus species, then we only emerged from one of them. Therefore, some anthropologists are convinced that the African fossils should be assigned a new taxonomic classification, Homo ergaster, a label first applied to the 1.6 million year old skeleton of a male juvenile found at East Turkana in Eastern Africa. More controversies along these lines will be addressed in the next chapter.

I don't see anything shocking, there are small squabbles going on, but it still doesn't change the fact that we evolved. :confused

 

[All Else Failed]

OKay,well I breezed through it, kind of crash course like, but hit on the higher point's.

I will say this, it is more consistent with the concept that the earth itself took millions of years to sustain life at the level in which it does now. (A concept I invest in heavily btw).

I do basically side with the evolutionary model to a degree.

HOWEVER, I still think there is room for "Creative Intelligence". Of course if I went into a lot of deatil about my argument, it would possibly take on the task of an entire different thread. (Because it brings up question's of the Bible and its accuracy).

I am not saying that the Bible is not......Something, but I do honestly believe it has been....Altered over years and years and years to fit the need's of the followers and even the originator's.

*ducks*

What exactly, makes you think "Intelligent design" when you look at things?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

What exactly, makes you think "Intelligent design" when you look at things?

I guess perhaps it's more idealism than anything else, not even close to science.

But I look at the harmony, the basic materpeice around us an cannot help but wonder.

You already know that I do partly go with the evolution model, I have told you that already. However, when it comes to the creation of the universe(s) it is absolute fact, that there are unexplained incident's that didn't happen by mistake, that does not mean divine inetervention I know, but it does mean "un-known".

At the end of the day, I am not really sure why it matters sooo much to the evolution gang, or the creationlist gang who's right and who's wrong. Why both sides cannot let the other one have their collective head's. Basically if you proved evolution beyond the shadow of doubt, so. What does that mean?

It is just imposssible for me to believe, seeing the marvel's of human accompishment's, my children being born, sound, sight, smell that we are not the handiwork of an intelligent being. That is just me. It is an ineer struggle with me mind you, because the scientific brain wants badly to explain everything, to embrace some sort of idea that will uncover mystery, then there is the childlike side, that just sits in awe and really doesn't care how it happened, I just marvel at the fact that we are here sharing space.

Here is my concern, however we got here, here we are.

Now what are we going to do about it....

[/Philosopher Off]

I am for the most part done, I am perplexed to be honest, I do not like debate souly for the reason that I appreciate hearing and seeing others ideas too much to squash them, or make them look insignificant.

I take a backseat to Scott, I prefer to be in harmony and watch you two go at it

Knowing deep down inside, that you two, like it or not, share an immense amount of respect and admiration for each other.

As do I.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

The story continues.........

Ah hahhhh!!!!!....The Badboy returns:

*Fixed*

Meet the Fockers

Why study primates? By studying primates, we're essentially studying ourselves. The primate order includes humans and our closest living biological relatives,as well as all extinct primate and human ancestors. In addition..............

Oh I'm loving this junk:unsure:

AEF, where do you stand with this?

Paleolithic Controversies

The preceding descriptions seem clear enough, but underneath the basic classifications lies a major anthropological controversy.

Some scholars believe that the variability seen between African and Asian Homo erectus means that these...........Homo erectus rests on the notion that the large.............Homo erectus maintains............Homo...........actually two Homo erectus...........Homo ergaster, a label...........will be addressed in the next chapter.

====:ninja *(((TWEEEET)))*

Foul: Badboy, please leave homos and erections out of this. Behave.

_______________________
HOLD THE PRESSES!!!!

......AEF gets soft:

I don't see anything wrong with what has been said above?

......and again:

I don't see anything shocking, there are small squabbles going on, but it still doesn't change the fact that we evolved. :confused

......just when you thought it was safe....

What exactly, makes you think "Intelligent design" when you look at things?

......Prove it!
_______________________
The story continues.....

Is the Intruder coming back from his research with some bombs?
.......Where is tha Timmeh?...gathering some ammo also?...you can run but you can't hide.
.........Will the ninja gLing make a re-appearance?
.........The Donnie. Is the Donnie feeding the baby and changing diapers?
.........Is the Boomer sticking to his guns "I know what I know, you know what you know. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe"...and is he still scratchin' his balls?
..........Is the Debbie cooking curry today?.........

So many questions need answers.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Science = The study of God's creation.

For anyone that is interested - you can practice one and believe in the other with no conflicts. I do.

The Bible is NOT a science book. The Bible is much more important than that. It is our road map to God. And a science book is not written to put us on the road to God. It is the study and practice of His creation. Spirituality is a separate part of our being. Scientific knowledge and our spirituality need not be in conflict with one another. Whether one believes that the earth is 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years old has nothing to do with one's salvation as your worldly knowledge is not what brings you close to the Father anyway. This thread/argument is mute spiritually imo.

 

[Peter Parka]

What is salvation then? Should I put this in another thread?

 

[Maulds]

For anyone that is interested - you can practice one and believe in the other with no conflicts. I do.

My Anthropolgy professor was a Christian.