Early Man....Question

[Tomatoman]

How big would the Ark have to be to fulfil the role described in the Bible?

 

[Exial]

Evidence, that, if it was true, all the kinds were on it. There is lots of indications and evidences of the flood. Science is out of the running in being able to comment one way or the other on it. What evidence does science have against it? None!

You seem to be mixed up here. It is not "sciences" job to search for evidence against a global flood but rather your job to find evidence for your claim that a global flood occured.

Extradinary claims require extradinary proof, and you have yet to show any.

 

[troodon]

To a number of scientists, one of the observations that falsified the Big Bang theory is the existence of two different red-shifted objects in close proximity, and even connected:

The Big Bang theory says this is impossible. I’ve debated this many times before with others, so it’s not my desire to debate it with you now, so if you disagree, we can just agree to disagree on this for now.

This doesn't mean too much to me without explaining why this is inconsistent with the theory.

So is there any empirical data which fits the hypotheses that Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine?

Any data that fits with it? What kind of data, archaeological? Not that I'm aware of.

If not, are those hypotheses scientifically falsified?

No, you need data about an event before you can try to falsify it. That's why scientists call Intelligent Design "unscientific", because it makes claims about things for which we have no data - ergo it is unfalsifiable.

And if they are scientifically falsified, does this mean they didn't actually happen?

If a hypothesis is falsified then it did not happen. If I hypothesize that my Peter Cushing was my babysitter when I was a child, and I falsify that hypothesis, that means Peter Cushing did not babysit me as a child.

The existence of the present nation of Israel, they descended from a literal Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as recorded in Genesis (Jesus also descended from them).

....
Why would I be talking about Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob? When I say "a literal interpretation of Genesis has been falsified" I don't mean the entire book, I mean the creation myth and Noah's flood, Genesis 1-8.

And what “little” evidence is that?

The fact that a movement was sprung up around him and something motivated these followers to be willing to martyr themselves in order to spread that movement. It didn't spring out of nothing, something probably started it, and I think that 'something' was the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evidence, that, if it was true, all the kinds were on it.

And if it's not true, it's another in a long series of myths.

Refresh my memory -- you're not the one who thinks myths are historically true?

There is lots of indications and evidences of the flood.

IF we accept your "Different state past" blather, which only exists because -- you need it to provide "evidence" for the Flood.

 

[USincognito]

Really? Are you sure about that? So If I can point to at least one paleontologist who does disagree then your point is shown to be false right?

Off the top of my head, how about Dr. Niles Eldridge just for a start??

Go ahead and produce a quote where he disagrees whether a particular hominid fossil is "fully ape" or "fully human" and I'll retract my assertion.

Just because you think they're bogus doesn't make them so.

It's not just me. It's everyone in anatomy and paleontology who is familiar with hominid remains and Lubenow's claims. He's still making the Neanderthals = rickets one many years after it's been debunked.

The fact is there is a wide range of skull shapes and brow prominence amongst living humans, some from genetic abnormalities, some from disease, and some from racial differences (e.g. brow prominence in Australian Aboriginals). If they were all dug up in a hundred years time I would hope scientist would recognize this rather than place them all on some evolutionary timescale.

This is a Creationist myth. If you look at Australian Aborigines you do not see brow ridges like forensic reconstruction - done by the same people who put faces on murder victims - of Neanderthals and other hominids evidence. You also don't see a brow ridge per se in their skulls. That's more the result of fat and muscle. All modern human skulls look like N in the photo below.
http://www.christianforums.com/attachments/25093d1102473008-hominids2.jpg
and it is the major differences between all modern humans and our archaic sapiens and other hominid ancestors that allows us to create this cranial spectrum.
And the disease "excuse" is laughable. How amazing is it that we only find the bodies of diseased individuals in those strata, but never healthy ones? How amazing is it that every individual said to be of a hominid species has exactly the same proportional manifestation of the disease? How amazing is it that Creationists can't tell us what the disease is except for the long debunked rickets?

A little narcissistic of you to think that him and I alone thought you were wrong in that debate but if it makes you feel better I won't try and dissuade you of that notion.

If I were so wrong I would have expected more readers to step up in the commentary thread and explain to me where I was in error. The only criticisms I saw were of my style, not my substance.

NP.

"Piltdown Man went from being one of the biggest discoveries of the 20th Century to being its greatest scientific embarrassment. On 21 November 1953, the fossils discovered 40 years earlier and acclaimed as the "missing link" between apes and humans were finally revealed to be forgeries.

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

How do these quotes turn my argument on it's head. I mention that Piltdown was a fake right in the very first paragraph:

(I’m writing this introduction after I’ve completed my OP, and at 4:50am I might add, so I’m going to keep it short and simple. My overall theme is that Creationists seem to want to bifurcate the Hominid fossil record into Piltdown and “everything else” then either ignore all the other evidence or myopically focus on the fake then try tainting all the other fossils because of it. I’ve laid out my OP under headings that generally follow this theme to my resolution that Creationists should not use Piltdown in the Creation and Evolution debate.)

In my "logical fallacies" section I mention fraud 5 times and fake once more. In my "the rest of the story" section I note that:

Most importantly we are not sure if it was meant as a fraud in the first place. It likely was, but it would have been a practical joke gone awry. It might also have been planted by someone angry at the scientific community like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. We can’t even really be sure if it was Dawson who perpetrated the hoax/practical joke or was its unwitting victim, since he died before the fakery was exposed. If one really wants to sincerely introduce Piltdown into an intellectually honest Creation/Evolution discussion then the focus should be on the scientific method, not the fraud.

Again, fraud, fraud, fraud mentioned over and over by me. I then go on to explain why other legitimate finds - before, shortly after and over the next 80 years - are reason enough that Creationsts aren't making a point when they object to hominid fossils by pointing out Piltdown. How then do your two quotes turn my argument on it's head?

 

[USincognito]

I bolded that one comment you made above and have to wonder if exaggeration can fall in the catagory of "faked"? You say there are dozens of hominid fossils unearthed. Where do they fall in this statistic?

Huh? Look, let me put it this way. Fossils are either real or they're fake. As to how they are classified, that's sometimes going to change based on new finds. Without DNA it's hard to draw up a precise cladegram. As far as hype goes... well, sometimes scientists like the spotlight. That doesn't take away the fact that the fossil exists or that we can learn a lot, even from an overhyped one.

Approximately 95 percent of all known fossils are marine invertebrates, about 4.7 percent are algae and plants, about 0.2 percent are insects and other invertebrates, and only about 0.1 percent are vertebrates (animals with bones). Finally, only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consists of primates (humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs).

The human,ape, monkey and lemur fossils found to date I hear can barely fill a regular size coffin.

You heard wrong. The bone fragments alone would fill up several coffins. Skulls would probably fill up several more. And semi-complete skeletons will even more. Check out the list on this Wiki entry

And to say there is no contraversay or speculation or presupposed assumptions or exaggerations given to what has been found in the 90ish years since Piltdown would be a biased opinion to say the least.

Since you just showed yourself to be unaware of how many hominid fossils we have, I'd say your opinion of my assertion is groundless.

Funny the hush in the evolutionary ranks of Ida.

Ida might not be the find she was overhyped to be, but she is an amazingly complete and fascinating 45,000,000 year old fossil with some very interesting features. The fact that she was overhyped doesn't change these other facts about her.

Here is a statement on Lucy by the founder Johanson himself:{snip}

Founder? The word you're looking for is "discoverer". And quote mining isn't evidence of anything. We have her skeleton. It's 40% complete and most of it can be mirrored because humans are bilateral beings. She clearly is an upright walking hominid of the genus Australopithecus.

And I am hearing a LOUD murmer in the camp about Ardi who ironically was brought out on the date of the Darwn celebration. How convenient.

I can't blame paleontologists for having a bit of showmanship, but what "murmers" are you hearing and from what "camp"?

{snip}It is fascinating how regularly the hominid tree is pruned.{snip}

Got a few examples? Ida's a primate fossil not a homind, Lucy is still an A. afarensis, Ardi is still a hominid, Taung child, Turkana Boy, Mrs. Ples, Java Man, etc. etc. are all still in the hominid tree.

Are you sure you meant pruned? Perhaps you meant the branches are sometimes shifted around a bit?

 

[Nostromo]

To a number of scientists, one of the observations that falsified the Big Bang theory is the existence of two different red-shifted objects in close proximity, and even connected:

We've been through that before, and why it only makes sense to people who don't think in 3 dimensions.

 

[Crankitup]

Go ahead and produce a quote where he disagrees whether a particular hominid fossil is "fully ape" or "fully human" and I'll retract my assertion.

Well I did say "off the top of my head". I seem to recall that when he co-wrote the book 'The Myths of Human Evolution', where the concept of punctuated equilibrium was first discussed in detail, a non-traditional view was taken on a particular fossil. Then again, I could be confusing his analysis of scientists turning a blind eye to the gaps in the fossil record whilst still stubbornly clinging onto Darwin's gradualism, to the way I viewed scientists as negligent with regards to Piltdown Man and how it took 40 years to show it was fraudulent.

You were originally trying to say that Lubenow was a crank on the basis that (amongst one or two other things) he didn't agree with other creationists regarding whether a particular fossil was hominoid or simian. I countered that paleontologists disagree as well and your response seems to be along the lines that they don't disagree to the same degree, e.g. on whether a particular fossil is hominoid or simian. I'm sure if I had the time I could find an instance where a paleontologist has disagreed with the orthodoxy on this point, whether it be Niles, or whether it be a creationist paleontologist like Kurt Wise (who studied under S. J. Gould) or someone else. Perhaps for now it might be enough for you to consider that paleontologists do disagree on some very large and elementary things like whether all the fossils from the Cambrian Period and the earlier Precambrian, are animals. Does this make them all (to use your earlier line of reasoning) cranks?

It's not just me. It's everyone in anatomy and paleontology who is familiar with hominid remains and Lubenow's claims. He's still making the Neanderthals = rickets one many years after it's been debunked.

That's the common misconception in atheistic evolutionary circles. Lubenow never claimed that Neanderthals were modern humans with rickets. He did suggest it as a possible cause of Neanderthal and Homo Erectus morphology but this wasn't anything new.

And the disease "excuse" is laughable. How amazing is it that we only find the bodies of diseased individuals in those strata, but never healthy ones?

If there was an environmental factor causing the disease then it would make perfect sense wouldn't it, or is that too much of a stretch for you?

How do these quotes turn my argument on it's head.

The issue is that the whole tenor and tone of your arguments in that debate is that Piltdown wasn't really that big a deal seeing as it wasn't "universally accepted" and was only "marginally considered genuine". The BBC quote that characterises it as "one of the biggest discoveries of the 20th Century" and then "it's greatest scientific embarrassment" along with Wiki's description of it as "the most famous paleontological hoax in history" lends an entirely different tone to the issue than your fumbled attempts to water it down and sweep it under the carpet, don't you think?

 

[Doveaman]

This doesn't mean too much to me without explaining why this is inconsistent with the theory.

This is why many people just accept the theory without question; a kind of faith acceptance.

I think the images speak for themselves. The simple explanation is that many astronomers believe such objects should not be connected, or even close. The images say they are wrong.

Any data that fits with it? What kind of data, archaeological? Not that I'm aware of.

Any scientific evidence at all.

Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that a man could ever walk on water and turn it into wine as Jesus is said to have done? If not, does this mean it never happened?

No, you need data about an event before you can try to falsify it. That's why scientists call Intelligent Design "unscientific", because it makes claims about things for which we have no data - ergo it is unfalsifiable.

That depends on how the term "Intelligent Design" is used. Not all theists use it the same way. Some use it to explain observed facts. There's plenty of evidence for Intelligent Design all around us. Have you ever seen intelligence come from non-intelligence? That fact itself is evidence for Intelligent Design.

Even if you did see, the statistics go overwhelmingly in favor of Intelligent Design.

If a hypothesis is falsified then it did not happen. If I hypothesize that my Peter Cushing was my babysitter when I was a child, and I falsify that hypothesis, that means Peter Cushing did not babysit me as a child.

Peter Cushing is falsified because the evidence, or lack thereof, suggest he didn't babysit you.

Jesus walking on water is falsified because the the evidence, or lack thereof, suggest this is impossible.

Does this mean Jesus didn't walk on water?

Why would I be talking about Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob? When I say "a literal interpretation of Genesis has been falsified" I don't mean the entire book, I mean the creation myth and Noah's flood, Genesis 1-8.

Then you need to make yourself clear when you say "book".

It is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam (Jesus), a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. - 1 Cor 15:45-49.

These two men are spoken of in the same context, so they are both either metaphorical or literal.

Since the second man, Jesus, is literal, so then is the first man, Adam, since they are both spoken of in the same context.

Jesus Himself considered Adam to be literal when He said, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Matt 19:4-6.

Adam and Eve (male and female) were married by God Himself as an example for us to follow.

The fact that a movement was sprung up around him and something motivated these followers to be willing to martyr themselves in order to spread that movement. It didn't spring out of nothing, something probably started it, and I think that 'something' was the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Or maybe is was Muhammad .

Is this the only reason that led to your Christian conversion? because I'm sure it was not enough for most Christians.

 

[Crankitup]

It is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam (Jesus), a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. - 1 Cor 15:45-49.

These two men are spoken of in the same context, so they are both either metaphorical or literal.

Since the second man, Jesus, is literal, so then is the first man, Adam, since they are both spoken of in the same context.

Jesus Himself considered Adam to be literal when He said, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Matt 19:4-6.

 

[brinny]

THIS INFORMATION IS FROM

I know its a long post, but please read the information in order to understand the questions I am asking. Thank you very much

Homo habilis

H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.
Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils.

Homo georgicus

This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 780 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)

Homo erectus

H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender (though still extraordinarily strong), like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.

Homo ergaster

Some scientists classify some African erectus specimens as belonging to a separate species, Homo ergaster, which differs from the Asian H. erectus fossils in some details of the skull (e.g. the brow ridges differ in shape, and erectus would have a larger brain size). Under this scheme, H. ergaster would include fossils such as the Turkana boy and ER 3733.

Homo antecessor

Homo antecessor was named in 1977 from fossils found at the Spanish cave site of Atapuerca, dated to at least 780,000 years ago, making them the oldest confirmed European hominids. The mid-facial area of antecessor seems very modern, but other parts of the skull such as the teeth, forehead and browridges are much more primitive. Many scientists are doubtful about the validity of antecessor, partly because its definition is based on a juvenile specimen, and feel it may belong to another species. (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997; Kunzig 1997, Carbonell et al. 1995)

Homo sapiens (archaic) (also Homo heidelbergensis)

Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (also Homo neanderthalensis)

Neandertal (or Neanderthal) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neandertals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men averaged about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. Neandertals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neandertals were formidable hunters, and are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992; Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Gore 1996)

Homo floresiensis

Homo floresiensis was discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003. Fossils have been discovered from a number of individuals. The most complete fossil is of an adult female about 1 meter tall with a brain size of 417cc. Other fossils indicate that this was a normal size for floresiensis. It is thought that floresiensis is a dwarf form of Homo erectus - it is not uncommon for dwarf forms of large mammals to evolve on islands. H. floresiensis was fully bipedal, used stone tools and fire, and hunted dwarf elephants also found on the island. (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004)

Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)

Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994)
Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983).
------

According to science, and other physical evidence (fossils, breeding grounds,ect.) Science has come to the conclusion these are our closest relatives (in evolution, Homo sapien-modern man, and Homo hablis- closest to our modern form)
But since there is this evidence, I am so confused
Ive grown up in the church, and have experienced our perfect God in so many ways. How can I break down this evidence as truth, and still serve a God who created the whole world in 7 days? I just see conflict and want to find resolution within my own faith in order to serve God, this is a huge stumbling block for me recently since studying this in a secular university.

If my questions arent clear please inform me and I will try to rewrite them. Thanks again!

God bless

Are all you mentioned above created in the image of God?

 

[brinny]

You seem to be mixed up here. It is not "sciences" job to search for evidence against a global flood but rather your job to find evidence for your claim that a global flood occured.

Extradinary claims require extradinary proof, and you have yet to show any.

is that your way of saying that science CANNOT disprove that the ark/flood existed?

 

[Skaloop]

These two men are spoken of in the same context, so they are both either metaphorical or literal.

Does not follow. I could speak of Doveaman and Superman in the same context, but that doesn't make Superman real just because you are.

 

[Cabal]

is that your way of saying that science CANNOT disprove that the ark/flood existed?

No, it's stating where the burden of proof lies.

 

[SithDoughnut]

is that your way of saying that science CANNOT disprove that the ark/flood existed?

No one can disprove anything without making a mutually exclusive positive claim, which is nigh on impossible in most situations. In other words: You can't prove a negative.

However, the burden of proof puts the onus on those who make the claim. Those who claim that the ark exists must give evidence of either the ark's existence or some impact it had that can be measured now. Otherwise, the logical conclusion is to treat it like any other hypothesis and doubt it until evidence is produced.

You cannot throw the hypothesis away entirely, but until the evidence appears it will be filed away in the same category as hypotheses like "Trees can walk and talk" or "I was kidnapped by aliens". No proof = no theory.

 

[brinny]

No one can disprove anything without making a mutually exclusive positive claim, which is nigh on impossible in most situations. In other words: You can't prove a negative.

However, the burden of proof puts the onus on those who make the claim. Those who claim that the ark exists must give evidence of either the ark's existence or some impact it had that can be measured now. Otherwise, the logical conclusion is to treat it like any other hypothesis and doubt it until evidence is produced.

You cannot throw the hypothesis away entirely, but until the evidence appears it will be filed away in the same category as hypotheses like "Trees can walk and talk" or "I was kidnapped by aliens". No proof = no theory.

Therefore it is "possible" that the ark existed, until it is dis-proven?

 

[troodon]

This is why many people just accept the theory without question; a kind of faith acceptance.

I'm not terribly interested in the Big Bang, otherwise I would have gone out of my way to educate myself on the subject. I don't argue the subject on this forum because I know I don't know much about it.

I think the images speak for themselves.

Well I'm here to tell you, they don't.

The simple explanation is that many astronomers believe such objects should not be connected, or even close. The images say they are wrong.

That isn't an explanation, that's hand waving. An explanation would include the reason why the astronomers think these things shouldn't exist.

Is there

any scientific evidence to suggest that a man could ever walk on water and turn it into wine as Jesus is said to have done?

No.

If not, does this mean it never happened?

Again, no. A lack of evidence does not falsify anything, I've been quite clear on this.

That depends on how the term "Intelligent Design" is used. Not all theists use it the same way. Some use it to explain observed facts. There's plenty of evidence for Intelligent Design all around us. Have you ever seen intelligence come from non-intelligence? That fact itself is evidence for Intelligent Design.

It's tiring arguing science with someone who doesn't understand the very fundamentals of how science operates. Why do you even come here to say that science is wrong if you don't even know the philosophy and mechanics behind it? I freely admit to being ignorant about the Big Bang, but I don't run around telling people that the theory's right or the theory's wrong, because I know I'm not educated enough about it to speak on it. Take my word for it, Doveaman, you are very far from being educated about science.

Science looks for things to falsify theories. That's what we've been talking about, falsification. Remember when I compared it to Clue? There's no "evidence for" Professor Plum in Clue, there's only falsification of everyone but Professor Plum. Historical science doesn't care at all about "evidence for". There is no "evidence for" in these sciences except to favor one possible theory over another, those few theories that have not already been falsified.

Intelligent Design claims that there are some things that cannot evolve naturally. That is a claim that cannot be falsified, because we can never naturally evolve these traits in a lab. And even if we were able to do that, being able to naturally evolve them in a lab doesn't mean that they naturally evolved on earth.

Remember earlier when I said you can't prove a positive in a historical science, it applies here too. I can't prove that the Black Dragon member represents a shallow sea, no matter how much "evidence for" it I have, and IDers can't prove that the eyeball is too complex to evolve naturally. All that we can do with these hypotheses is try to falsify them. The Black Dragon hypothesis can be falsified, the eyeball statement cannot be falsified.

Peter Cushing is falsified because the evidence, or lack thereof, suggest he didn't babysit you.

Doveaman, read this very carefully.

"The Peter Cushing Hypothesis (great band name, btw) is falsified because the evidence suggests he didn't babysit me."

NOT

"The Peter Cushing Hypothesis is falsified because there is a lack of evidence."

Period, end of story. A lack of evidence never falsifies anything. There is a group of paleontologists who think that birds existed in the fossil record for tens of millions of years before Archaeopteryx lived. Most other paleontologists find it highly unlikely that birds could have existed that long without leaving a fossil record, but they know that this lack of evidence does not falsify the hypothesis.

A lack of evidence cannot falsify a hypothesis. Please understand this.

Jesus walking on water is falsified because the

evidence, or lack thereof, suggest this is impossible.

Does this mean Jesus didn't walk on water?

The Jesus hypothesis includes the fact that he was divine. A normal human being cannot walk on water, but a divine one may be able to, so the fact that normal human beings can't walk on water does not falsify this hypothesis.

These two men are spoken of in the same context, so they are both either metaphorical or literal.

Since the second man, Jesus, is literal, so then is the first man, Adam, since they are both spoken of in the same context.

This is theology. If you'd like to discuss it further please make a thread here and I'd love to answer it for you.

This forum is for discussions relating to science.

Or maybe is was Muhammad .

He lived 600 years later.

Is this the only reason that led to your Christian conversion?

Of course not. You asked what evidence I have that Jesus rose from the dead, not why am I a Christian. Don't expect me to read your mind and prove answers to questions you have not asked.

 

[Meshach]

Are all you mentioned above created in the image of God?

They are actually all created by a few bones and the presupposed imagination of man.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Are all you mentioned above created in the image of God?

They are actually all created by a few bones and the presupposed imagination of man.

You didn't answer the question. Are all of what was listed in the first post of this thread, created in the image of God?

 

[troodon]

You didn't answer the question. Are all of what was listed in the first post of this thread, created in the image of God?

Does God have a physical image? and how much does He look like me?