carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
My fault, no need in duckin it! I meant to say "elude!"
https://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/allude_elude.htm
Scientific paper says the human hand was designed by a 'Creator'!
- Thread starter carolinajazz
- Start date
My fault, no need in duckin it! I meant to say "elude!"
https://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/allude_elude.htm
It allows me to vent.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...so a scientific paper written by 4 college/university graduates compiling data and fact finding of a most accurate nature...is "garbage?"
But making outrageous claims and statements that have not one iota of proof, scientific or otherwise should be considered "must reading" and believed without a shadow of a doubt?
First, I have no idea what the paper you refer to really says.
Second, there are thousands of people who have devoted their life to the study and understanding of human biology, human evolution, archaeology, animal biology, animal evolution, plant biology, plant evolution, medicine, anthropology, etc.. But these four say something you think proves something that makes all those other experts findings meaningless, and so to you that's indisputable proof that God exists. I'll just say, that even if the hand was "created" it doesn't prove Christianity correct anymore than it proves Greek mythology correct.
Third, would you mind posting a scan of your degree so we know how seriously to take your claims in regard to science?
Fourth, I don't "believe" in evolution. I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I do trust in the expertise of people who are evolutionary biologists. I have no reason to believe they are trying to trick me on behalf of the devil.
Evolution is in fact the consequence of any changing system that undergoes selection. You don't need science to understand that. For example, technology "evolves" in response to consumer demand. That is because some technologies catch on and invite capital and mental investment in its development, while others wither away. So you can look at a current device and trace back its evolutionary history.
With what we know about genetics, it is literally impossible for evolution not to happen. This would be the case even if we didn't have any direct evidence. Which of course, we have mountains of.
I can at least respect "directed evolution" as a philosophical argument. But this hilarious Biblical literalist rejection of evolution boggles the mind.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
To read the article/paper, check the 1st post on this thread!
Just because millions upon millions of people believe evolution is a fact and have degrees in science and biology does not make the theory or idea true! There was a time when the great majority of people believed the earth was flat! Others (also a majority!)thought the earth was sitting on the back of a turtle, standing on the back of an elephant! These were Greek philosophers educated in the higher learning schools of there time! People that have degrees of higher learning do not make them "experts" or geniuses by any stretch of the imagination! I've got a neighbor who is a lawyer and travels the whole world...who sincerely believes her dead dog is now in heaven!
Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith! The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they always lose scientific debates with creation scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, including the thousands of people who have devoted their life to the study and understanding of human biology, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on those that believe in creation!
Why do they not want to "debate" with creation scientists? Because they cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," they cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about....and all there popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of there imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions!
I'm glad, by the way, that you don't believe in evolution even if it's just based on the fact that no one has ever seen it happen in the past nor is there ANY real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
The word "evolution" or "evolving" in the context of our discussion is directly related to biological "change" and not the changing of technology or an economic system or the inventing of the wheel! Yes things "change"...but they don't evolve! The game of basketball has changed from hand checking to no hand checking! From no 3 point shot to a 3 point shot! From no palming the ball, to palming and traveling simultaneously! And what we know about "genetics" not only disproves evolution, but is the strongest case for direct creation! There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.
Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else....are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolution has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?
Like the so called "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.
And please don't lump me in the "hilarious Biblical literalist" who insist that the Genesis account of creation calls for a 24 hr "creative" day or a 6,000 years of creating the Universe and all the planets in it!
Scientists estimate that the earth is about 4*billion years old and that the universe was born some 13 to 14*billion years ago. The Bible sets no date for the creation of the universe. In no place does it affirm that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The very first verse in the Bible reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) That general statement allows scientists to determine the age of the physical world according to sound scientific principles.
Genesis chapter*1 uses the term “day” to set out the stages in the preparation of the earth for life in all its diverse forms. The culminating event in this simple description was the appearance of humans. The Bible fixes no duration for the six creative “days.” Instead, it opens the door for modern scientists to study them and assign accurate time spans to them. We know that the creative “days” were much longer than 24-hour days. The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration .*.*. Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours! In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter*1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours..."capisce?" (it's an Italian word...and there's no K in Italian}!
It seems to me that poor CJ struggles with his beliefs and the dwindling faith he has in an almighty creator. These threads have less to do with convincing the secular folks on this board and more about convincing himself.
I am so sure about my lack of belief in a higher power that I rarely, if ever, talk about it. Much like Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster and the tooth fairy.
I am so sure about my lack of belief in a higher power that I rarely, if ever, talk about it. Much like Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster and the tooth fairy.
so CJ, are you like real bummed out that Ben Carson has suspended his campaign?
I can't see you as a Trump kind of guy.
I can't see you as a Trump kind of guy.