Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[VirOptimus]

It seems that you are trying to have an argument over semantics.

No, I'm just pointing out one of your numerous errors.

Scientists today might classify humans as apes, but this is likely intended to downplay the vast difference in intelligence between humans and other primates.

Thats not how science works. Humans are apes because thats what the data and evidence tell us.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, that doesn't quite logically follow. How are you able to prove that homo erectus was an evolutionary transition, rather than an ancient race of our own species?

It's perfectly reasonable to believe that if a homo erectus were alive today, put on a suit and walked down Fifth Avenue, he could blend in with the other people in the street.

The apelike features in depictions of homo erectus are from the imagination of the artist:

The artist has to assume, without any evidence, that homo erectus was covered in hair and had a stooped posture.

We have their bones. Massively heavier features and proportionally much smaller brains.

The artists renditions are completely within reason.

Homo erectus and Homo habilis are my favourite two transitional hominid because they clearly demonstrate that "ape" and "human" in the colloquial sense are a sliding scale rather than anything clear cut.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, it's tough for the Earth to hide truth.

The thing is though, in the places where the earth is negative, people are oohing and aahing.

Like my point with the Grand Canyon.

If someone received a severe gash on their hand, would you think, "What a wonderful exhibit! Look at all that stuff inside the hand!"

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think that an alternative scientific explanation needs to be provided. A person can evaluate the evidence presented for evolution for oneself, and then decide if common design is a more reasonable interpretation of the evidenc.

If you're going to discount a scientific theory then you'll need a better scientific theory so to do. Please don't waste my time with anything else.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're going to discount a scientific theory then you'll need a better scientific theory so to do.

A no-evidence-generated six-day creation week wouldn't discount a scientific theory that would state otherwise?

If Event A occurs, but doesn't generate any evidence (or does, but the evidence doesn't last), and a scientific theory states otherwise; which one is wrong? Event A or the scientific theory?

 

[Estrid]

If you're going to discount a scientific theory then you'll need a better scientific theory so to do. Please don't waste my time with anything else.

Hmm. If someone disproves a theory, it's disproved.
I don't think that means a better one must be provided in the process.

Of course what an individual decides is
"reasonable" is no standard at all unless
maybe it's some creationist standard.

In the event, our hero has not one datum point to indicate
any falsity to ToE.

 

[Bradskii]

If Event A occurs, but doesn't generate any evidence (or does, but the evidence doesn't last), and a scientific theory states otherwise; which one is wrong? Event A or the scientific theory?

It's a nonsensical question which illustrates your lack of understanding of scientific matters. You're confusing an event - which is a set of facts, with a theory - which is the best explanation for that set of facts.

Stick to the bible. You're on safe ground there.

 

[Estrid]

No, that doesn't quite logically follow. How are you able to prove that homo erectus was an evolutionary transition, rather than an ancient race of our own species?

It's perfectly reasonable to believe that if a homo erectus were alive today, put on a suit and walked down Fifth Avenue, he could blend in with the other people in the street.

The apelike features in depictions of homo erectus are from the imagination of the artist:

The artist has to assume, without any evidence, that homo erectus was covered in hair and had a stooped posture.

I've seen people with more hair than that, and the posture is
not stooped.

 

[Bradskii]

Hmm. If someone disproves a theory, it's disproved.
I don't think that means a better one must be provided in the process.

He wasn't disproving it. He was discounting it. He said that an alternative needn't be provided:

"I don't think that an alternative scientific explanation needs to be provided. "

It does. If you discount one, you need to supply a better one. Otherwise you have no reason to discount it. Unless, as you say, you actively disprove it and then you can say that we are yet to determine a theory which will replace it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a nonsensical question which illustrates your lack of understanding of scientific matters. You're confusing an event - which is a set of facts, with a theory - which is the best explanation for that set of facts.

Stick to the bible. You're on safe ground there.

Oh, my. Someone needs reading comprehension, doesn't he?

Okay -- let's try this:

If God created the universe ex nihilo, and a scientific theory (e.g., Big Bang) explains a set of facts otherwise; then which is wrong? God or the scientific theory?

I think anyone employing reading compensation skills can come up with the right answer -- and they don't even have to believe in God to do it.

Let's try another one:

Jesus walks on water. Science says that can't happen for obvious reasons. Which one is correct? Jesus walked on water, or science?

Let's go one more:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. Whether you believe in Humpty Dumpty or not, if someone said Humpty Dumpty sat on a park bench instead, who would be right?

 

[Estrid]

He wasn't disproving it. He was discounting it. He said that an alternative needn't be provided:

"I don't think that an alternative scientific explanation needs to be provided. "

It does. If you discount one, you need to supply a better one. Otherwise you have no reason to discount it. Unless, as you say, you actively disprove it and then you can say that we are yet to determine a theory which will replace it.

Ah, OK. Well, our pal does not have, can't do either one.

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh, my. Someone needs reading comprehension, doesn't he?

Okay -- let's try this:

If God created the universe ex nihilo, and a scientific theory (e.g., Big Bang) explains a set of facts otherwise; then which is wrong? God or the scientific theory?

I think anyone employing reading compensation skills can come up with the right answer -- and they don't even have to believe in God to do it.

Let's try another one:

Jesus walks on water. Science says that can't happen for obvious reasons. Which one is correct? Jesus walked on water, or science?

Let's go one more:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. Whether you believe in Humpty Dumpty or not, if someone said Humpty Dumpty sat on a park bench instead, who would be right?

The problem is that you are mistaken fiction for physical reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is that you are mistaken fiction for physical reality.

The "problem" is a lack of co-operation and/or reading comprehension.

But that's okay, isn't it? as long as it gives license to ad hom the target, it's worth it to tell co-operation, respect, and/or reading comprehension to take a hike, isn't it?

 

[Bradskii]

If God created the universe ex nihilo, and a scientific theory (e.g., Big Bang) explains a set of facts otherwise; then which is wrong? God or the scientific theory?

You started with one event (event A - undetermined) and a theory (also undetermined, but relating to event A). Which only served to illustrate your confusion regarding events (evidence) with the means by which they are explained (theories). So you had another go.

Now we have a supernatural event - caused by God, and a scientific theory which explains how He did it, and you want to know which is wrong. Which now exhibits your confusion regarding theological and scientific matters. Because God is the satisfactory theological fact in regard to the creation of the universe and the big bang is the best scientific explanation as to the process He used.

Would you like another go?

 

[VirOptimus]

The "problem" is a lack of co-operation and/or reading comprehension.

But that's okay, isn't it? as long as it gives license to ad hom the target, it's worth it to tell co-operation, respect, and/or reading comprehension to take a hike, isn't it?

Your posts get the answers they deserve. Want better answers, make better posts.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I don't want to get into a lenghty debate with atheists about evolution, especially since atheism requires evolution.

You state here that you don't want a lengthy debate with atheists about evolution and then immediately prove why it would be beneficial if you did.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you like another go?

No, thanks.

If you're going to go that far out of your way to avoid my question, then I'm sure you're a great asset to the academic world.

You make the Muses smile.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your posts get the answers they deserve.

Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from; even if you don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, you college-educated academians, this thread says it all:

My Humpty Dumpty Challenge

 

[VirOptimus]

Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from; even if you don't.

I am firmly in physical reality.