The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Or even worse, that we are in fact, animals. They shudder at that thought.

Not really. Animals are morally innocent. Man is not.

What makes us shudder is the wickedness that lies in the human heart, and the eternal hell-fire it so justly deserves.

What makes us rejoice is the sanctification God gives those who trust in Him, and the eternal life they have with Him. :):)

wolfsbane

pH said:

Also for some bizarre reason this is the second time today I've heard about this no death before the fall idea, and it reminds me of a question I've long wanted answered by a creationist:

What was God's original plan (proceeding on the basis that Adam & Eve would obey God and not eat the fruit)?.

No death means no heaven and hell (did he create them before or after the fall?) and no death/disease plus the ability to breed surely means a huge population explosion - this plan doesn't seem to be worked out very well to me, so I was just wondering if a biblical literalism could explain to me their understanding of what God's original plan for us humans was (before the we messed it all up).

Well, the commandment to Adam & Eve was to “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

What was to happen after that was accomplished, He doesn't say. Since - as you correctly point out - there would be no death, the population would remain static (no more births).

In the coming New Heaven and New Earth the population will also be static, for there will be no procreation - man will be like the holy angels are at present.

But let us not forget, the Fall did not take God by surprise. It was all forseen, and the remedy already planned:
Ephesians 1: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

His first example is from St. Augustine, which is rather ironic consider Augustine did not take Genesis to be scientifically literal (he considered Creation Week literal but as a spiritual event, and dealt with spiritual awakening, not a physical one) and believed in a very very old Earth.

I think you must have skipped the first quarter of the page, because the example from St Augustine isn't given untill then!
Augustine clearly believed that the Genesis account was true, he only had problems with understanding it. See the foolowing quote:
"We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it."

wolfsbane

Eschatologist said:

So God was responsible for the rise of dictators, disease, the Al Qaida attacks and hurricanes - even by their own admission, in this day and age God is responsible for natural disasters. Blaming a supernatural being doesn't hark back to the Dark Ages at all, no. How incredibly progressive and insightful

God visits consequences on sin. Just as the judge is responsible for someone serving 10 years for a crime, so God is responsible for every disaster that happens on earth.

That's not to say that every person suffering is being punished for their individual sins. We all suffer as a consequence of man's Fall in Eden and so suffer things common to a fallen world.

But particular incidents may be a judgement on some, a mark of approval to others. For example, the matrydom of a Christian is just as painful as had it been for a crime, but it is a mark of God's favour that he/she is permitted to suffer for His Name. The sinful responsibility rests with the perpetrator, though the sovereign responsibility rests with God.

Scofflaw

santing wrote: »

I think you must have skipped the first quarter of the page, because the example from St Augustine isn't given untill then!
Augustine clearly believed that the Genesis account was true, he only had problems with understanding it. See the foolowing quote:

Well, it's always an immense privilege to meet someone smarter than St Augustine.

impressed,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not really. Animals are morally innocent. Man is not.

What makes us shudder is the wickedness that lies in the human heart, and the eternal hell-fire it so justly deserves.

What makes us rejoice is the sanctification God gives those who trust in Him, and the eternal life they have with Him. :):)

Well maybe this is an misinterpretation on my part, but everytime i see the suggestion that we are apes made to creationists i witness a reaction of what could only be described as a bilious grimace.

The reason is that you guys believe that man is special on this earth, and that animals are lowly and here for our benefit only. How terrible it must be to hear that we are animals too.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
He doesn't - neither do we. We relate history and expect folk to take it as such, unless we indicate it is a parable, or a simile or metaphor.

So, the Iliad is what, exactly? I don't recall an introduction that says "hey, this is a fable". And the Bhagavad Gita, the Avesta, the Nibelungenlied, all the other transmitted epics?

I'm not sure what the Iliad purported to be - history? a good story? What do its contempories say of it? The difference to me is that between Ken Burns' The Civil War and Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind. Both contain historical references and historical characters - but the latter is a fictional account and was understood as such from the beginning.

Where do the Bhagavad Gita and other 'holy' texts fall into this? I haven't had time to research much, but it seems that the Bhagavad Gita is regarded as historical by those who believe it, for example, The people who believe that the Kurukshetra War was a historical event, date it variously from 5561 BCE to 800 BCE, based on the astronomical and literary information from Mahabharata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_war

Are you saying the Hindus back when it was written regarded it as non-historical?

What? There are clearly historical pieces in the Bible, and there are clearly ahistoric pieces. The 'hermeneutic' is that it represents a collection of material from different periods - which we happen to know it does. Some of those sources are history/oral history, some of them are myth.

It seems bizarre to me to insist that the Bible is a straight narrative thread and should be read as one, when we know it isn't. Not only that, but even a straight narrative thread by a single author could still start with myth, and go on into history. It's a very common pattern.

Not when the later writers refer to the earlier events as history. Especially since they are appealing to the events as proof of their present claims/commandments. It would be like me insisting time-travel is possible by citing Dr. Who's experiences.

Jesus and the apostles taught that Adam & Eve and the Genesis account were real, historical events. They were either correct, mistaken or lying.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Well maybe this is an misinterpretation on my part, but everytime i see the suggestion that we are apes made to creationists i witness a reaction of what could only be described as a bilious grimace.

The reason is that you guys believe that man is special on this earth, and that animals are lowly and here for our benefit only. How terrible it must be to hear that we are animals too.

I always grimace when God is insulted.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not really. Animals are morally innocent. Man is not.

What makes us shudder is the wickedness that lies in the human heart, and the eternal hell-fire it so justly deserves.

What makes us rejoice is the sanctification God gives those who trust in Him, and the eternal life they have with Him. :):)

Rather convenient, no?

Killbot2000

A bit of a random point but why did God choose to populate only a single planet in the entire universe? Talk about poor use of space.

Even on this planet there are only specific areas conducive to human life. It seems to me that the universe is quite poorly designed for humans.

Although this point will be ignored by creationists, why did it take God around 13.7 billion years before he created humans?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Scofflaw said:

I'm not sure what the Iliad purported to be - history? a good story? What do its contempories say of it? The difference to me is that between Ken Burns' The Civil War and Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind. Both contain historical references and historical characters - but the latter is a fictional account and was understood as such from the beginning.

Where do the Bhagavad Gita and other 'holy' texts fall into this? I haven't had time to research much, but it seems that the Bhagavad Gita is regarded as historical by those who believe it, for example, The people who believe that the Kurukshetra War was a historical event, date it variously from 5561 BCE to 800 BCE, based on the astronomical and literary information from Mahabharata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_war

Are you saying the Hindus back when it was written regarded it as non-historical?

Many will have regarded it as historic, some will not, some will not have cared. The important thing about the Mahabharata is what it teaches, not whether it happened.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not when the later writers refer to the earlier events as history. Especially since they are appealing to the events as proof of their present claims/commandments. It would be like me insisting time-travel is possible by citing Dr. Who's experiences.

Jesus and the apostles taught that Adam & Eve and the Genesis account were real, historical events. They were either correct, mistaken or lying.

Hmm. I have yet to see said teaching, but I can see your problem - can't be answers B or C, can it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

I always grimace when God is insulted.

Leave those apes alone, they did nothing to you!

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

Leave those apes alone, they did nothing to you!

wolfsbane: why do you grimace? Would not a God who could use natural processes to achieve his goal be more magnificent than one that simply snapped his fingers?
Which takes more intelligence and ingenuity?

Imho you are limiting your God unnecessarily; putting him in a box of your own construction.

J C

Killbot 2000
Neil Shubin of the University Of Chicago was investigating the water land transition. He noted that fossils around 380mya were unequivocally fish and strata dated around 360mya contained fully fledged terrestrial animals. Consequently he chose to explore sites around 370myr old to see if he could find transitional material.

……so on that basis the supposed transition from aquatic to terrestrial animals ONLY took 10 million years……a mere ‘blink’ of Evolutionary time!!!!
……so we are expected to believe that gills became lungs, scales became skin …….and fins became feet and legs …….in less than 0.1% of the time that life has supposedly been evolving on Earth ……
........and the Coelacanth Fish remained ‘manfully’ aloof and completely un-changed ……while all of this ‘Evolution’ was happening and the Coelacanth Fish has continued to remain un-changed over the 300 million years that has supposedly elapsed since then AS WELL!!!!!!!:eek::D


Killbot 2000
Guess what, his team found Tiktaaik, an intermediate between sea and land! His site was in the Arctic circle so there was no element of blind luck here. He used his knowledge of stratigraphy palaeontology etc. to determine the best place to look and found exactly what he expected.
Where is the proof of these assertions???


Killbot 2000
Now, one of the things that can determine the strength of a theory is its predictive power and this expedition proved that many of the aforementioned disciplines of geology do indeed have predictive power.
Please provide examples.


Killbot 2000
What say you now my creationist foes, what say you now?
I am certainly not your ‘foe’……I am your friend……..


Galvasean
What is it about creationists and lumping all scientists into one field? Just because someone is an expert in chemistry does not mean they are also experts in palaeontology. It would be like asking a dinosaur expert about the workings of black holes. It is simply not his field.
One of the strengths of some Creation Scientists is that they are polymaths…..and this gives them insights and overview that specialists sadly lack.:D


Wicknight
This is the type of thing that really pisses proper scientists off, this "well we are going to take this finding and apply it to something completely different and just say it also applies" attitude that Creationists take. And Creationists would be well to stop doing it if they want to be in any way taken seriously.

ALL of science is inter-linked…….and these linkages are often missed by specialist scientists……or sometime they will spend valuable time ‘reinventing a wheel’ that already has been discovered by another equally specialised scientific discipline.

BTW I fully accept that scientific specialisation is important, with our rapidly expanding knowledge base…….but overview is also essential …….and somewhat lacking in some areas of modern science.
The emergence of Philosophers of Science has addressed aspects of this deficiency……..but more 'cross-fertilisation' and information exchange across scientific boundaries is essential to avoid 'incestuous' or 'closed' thinking within individual disciplines.


Wicknight
This is like saying you can't get from Dublin to Holyhead in 4 hours driving a car, for the creationists to come back and say "Well I know someone who got from Dublin to Limerick in under 4 hours, and the distance is about the same, so that demonstrates that it is possible"

I recently took my car from Dublin to Holyhead……in about TWO hours!!!!!!
……so it is not only possible to take your car from Dublin to Holyhead…….it can be done in half the time that it (sometimes) takes to get to Limerick!!!!!

Wicknight
JC does this type of thing all the time (all Creationists do one imagines), take one thing and apply it to something without any care as to if they are even related.
Could I suggest that taking my car to Limerick or taking it to Holyhead IS related…….just like flying to Shannon or Birmingham and renting a car is also a valid alternative that gives the same travel freedom as taking your car to both places.

Killbot 2000
A bit of a random point but why did God choose to populate only a single planet in the entire universe? Talk about poor use of space.
God doesn’t worry about ‘waste’……..He Created the Universe to prove His omnipotence and His existence…….and because He WISHED to do so.........
......and such a magnanimous gesture also shows just how important people (and their eternal destinies) are to God.:D

Killbot 2000
Even on this planet there are only specific areas conducive to human life. It seems to me that the universe is quite poorly designed for humans.……..largely a result of the ‘Fall’ and the 'Flood’!!!!!!:)

Killbot 2000
Although this point will be ignored by creationists, why did it take God around 13.7 billion years before he created humans?
……….a good question for the Theistic Evolutionists, actually!!!:eek::pac::)

robindch

J C wrote: »

One of the strengths of some Creation Scientists is that they are polymaths …..and this gives them insights and overview that specialists sadly lack

'Polymaths' is overstepping reality somewhat, but glancing down AiG's list of dentists, archaeologists, deceased rheumatologists and so on, you're certainly right to suggest that scarcely a single creationist propagandist is writing about something they've actually studied. It's little surprise that their "insights" are not shared by their more conventional opponents!

Nor do their "insights" extend any further than exclaiming to their swaying hordes of closed-eyed admirers that they've no idea about how something happened, so god must have didded it. An argument from ignorance if ever there was one

But "overview" and "insights"? Nah, keep it short -- "oversights"!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

ALL of science is inter-linked…….and these linkages are often missed by specialist scientists……or sometime they will spend valuable time ‘reinventing a wheel’ that already has been discovered by another equally specialised scientific discipline.

It also leads to people who don't really understand a subject making proclamations on websites such as AiG about "flaws" they believe they have discovered when in fact the actual people who have studied the subject identified those issues years, decades, centuries ago and have long since found solutions.

But it is always amusing to see a vet on AiG strum away on the flaws of the Big Bang theory :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

is essential to avoid 'incestuous' or 'closed' thinking within individual disciplines.

Would that be the "closed" thinking that proclaims the Bible as universal truth and that any evidence or theory that appears to contradict a literal reading of the Bible must be flawed, even if the reason why is not known?

It is a bit rich JC giving out about closed thinking in the scientific community when your own little community is founded on the most ridiculous level of closed thinking I can imagine.

J C wrote: »

I recently took my car from Dublin to Holyhead……in about TWO hours!!!!!!

I very much doubt you drove it though, did you.

What a Creationist like those in the article would do in that situation is say "JC took his car from Dublin to Holyhead in TWO hours, therefore he must have been going X speed in his car, and used Y amount of petrol. Now, based on that fact we can work out that his car engine must consume Z amount of petrol an hour" etc etc

Which is a bit silly. Because JC's car went from Dublin to Holyhead that doesn't mean that it went to Dublin to Holyhead in the same manner as it went from Dublin to Limerick.

This is kindergarten stuff

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

........and the Coelacanth Fish remained ‘manfully’ aloof and completely un-changed ……while all of this ‘Evolution’ was happening and the Coelacanth Fish has continued to remain un-changed over the 300 million years that has supposedly elapsed since then AS WELL!!!!!!!:eek::D

The coelacanths we have today are slightly different from those that lived millions of years ago. Animals don't simply evolve for no reason. The coelacanth have more or less occupied the same niche all this time, and as such have had no need to evolve. They're surviving just fine.

J C wrote: »

Killbot 2000
Guess what, his team found Tiktaalik, an intermediate between sea and land! His site was in the Arctic circle so there was no element of blind luck here. He used his knowledge of stratigraphy palaeontology etc. to determine the best place to look and found exactly what he expected.
Where is the proof of these assertions???

I posted a link about it. Myself and Wolfsbane had a (coherent) discussion about it.
Here it is again:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

One of the strengths of some Creation Scientists is that they are polymaths…..and this gives them insights and overview that specialists sadly lack.:D

Maybe 'know-it-alls' would be a better term than polymaths in this instance, hmm? :pac: And you know what they say about jacks of all trades!

All this, and you and Wolfsbane have yet to produce a single, practicing creation scientist! :eek:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Rather convenient, no?

Convenient? Like water to a man dying of thirst, convenient hardly covers it.

wolfsbane

Killbot2000 wrote: »

A bit of a random point but why did God choose to populate only a single planet in the entire universe? Talk about poor use of space.

Even on this planet there are only specific areas conducive to human life. It seems to me that the universe is quite poorly designed for humans.

Although this point will be ignored by creationists, why did it take God around 13.7 billion years before he created humans?

1. The universe is to glorify God and to give man a sense of that splendour, as well as heat & light and to mark times and seasons. It is not for habitation.

2. Before the Fall, and probably before the Flood, more of the earth would have been habitable. But even so, habitation is not necessarily the function of every part of a perfect earth. The sea, for example, is meant for the fish to habitate and man to swim in or boat on. Mountains for goats to habitate and man to climb. Etc.

3. You should familiarise yourself with what creationists actually teach. God did not take around 13.7 billion years before he created humans - He took 6 days.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Scofflaw said:

I'm not sure what the Iliad purported to be - history? a good story? What do its contempories say of it? The difference to me is that between Ken Burns' The Civil War and Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind. Both contain historical references and historical characters - but the latter is a fictional account and was understood as such from the beginning.

Where do the Bhagavad Gita and other 'holy' texts fall into this? I haven't had time to research much, but it seems that the Bhagavad Gita is regarded as historical by those who believe it, for example, The people who believe that the Kurukshetra War was a historical event, date it variously from 5561 BCE to 800 BCE, based on the astronomical and literary information from Mahabharata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_war

Are you saying the Hindus back when it was written regarded it as non-historical?

Many will have regarded it as historic, some will not, some will not have cared. The important thing about the Mahabharata is what it teaches, not whether it happened.

But you are applying your modern unbelieving principles to a text that was not so read by the original readers. That is the point: they may have been mistaken in believing it to be an actual account of their history, but they did so believe. Likewise with the original Jewish and Christian readers - it was not merely a moral tale to them, but history given by God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not when the later writers refer to the earlier events as history. Especially since they are appealing to the events as proof of their present claims/commandments. It would be like me insisting time-travel is possible by citing Dr. Who's experiences.

Jesus and the apostles taught that Adam & Eve and the Genesis account were real, historical events. They were either correct, mistaken or lying.

Hmm. I have yet to see said teaching, but I can see your problem - can't be answers B or C, can it?

Jesus on the beginning of creation:
Mark 10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

That is a straight reference to Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. and Genesis 2: 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

And, No, it can't be B or C - if one wishes to claim the name of Christian.

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

wolfsbane: why do you grimace? Would not a God who could use natural processes to achieve his goal be more magnificent than one that simply snapped his fingers?
Which takes more intelligence and ingenuity?

Imho you are limiting your God unnecessarily; putting him in a box of your own construction.

First of all God is insulted when we question His word - denying the historical accuracy of the Genesis account.

Next, God could have used evolution to produce man, if He wanted to - I've no problem with that. Either way, it would be a magnificent work. I can't see how it would have been more magnificent than doing it in a moment from a handful of dirt. In fact, the more one thinks of it, evolution would seem to be a very inefficient means.

But one cannot have evolution if one accepts the perfect nature of the biosphere as given in Genesis 1. Evolution demands disease, suffering and death - none of these existed before the Fall, according to Genesis.

Now, would you not say a perfect creation - free of disease, suffering and death - is a more magnificient one than an evolutionary creation?

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

All this, and you and Wolfsbane have yet to produce a single, practicing creation scientist!

Hmm. Help me with this, as I may be missing something.

I produce creation scientists who are currently employed as scientists in secular fields: you then say they are not doing creation science.

I produce creation scientists who have left their secular employment and are working full-time in creation research and lecturing: you then say they have left science and can't be regarded as scientists anymore.

If you can give me a job description for a practicing creation scientist that would be great.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you can give me a job description for a practicing creation scientist that would be great.

A scientist, actively engaged in research science concerning creation (if, indeed, that is even possible) - simple really! :pac: Journalists don't count, btw.

2Scoops

The issue, as I see it, is that if you want to claim the authority of science to go with your creation arguments, you should have some actual creation science and creation scientists.

And that is clearly what you are trying to do, whether you realize it or not. Creation journalist, creation lecturer or 'creationist who is a scientist' appear to be the far more appropriate terms in every case you have supplied thus far. There is no shame in any of these titles, so why else do you aggressively try to claim the mantle of science unless you want to revel in its perceived authority?? :pac:

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you are applying your modern unbelieving principles to a text that was not so read by the original readers. That is the point: they may have been mistaken in believing it to be an actual account of their history, but they did so believe. Likewise with the original Jewish and Christian readers - it was not merely a moral tale to them, but history given by God.

Unfortunately, that's simply you applying your specific take on it, and I have to point out that the majority of Christians don't share your views, but mine. Of course, you don't regard them as proper Christians.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Jesus on the beginning of creation:
Mark 10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

That is a straight reference to Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. and Genesis 2: 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

And, No, it can't be B or C - if one wishes to claim the name of Christian.

Neither of those examples require Jesus to be quoting Genesis as historical truth...he is simply quoting them as authoritative.

Of course, you cannot imagine that they can be authoritative unless they are historical, but that is only your opinion, in the light of which you assume Jesus must mean historical, because authoritative. You should attach the cart behind the horse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

The coelacanths we have today are slightly different from those that lived millions of years ago. Animals don't simply evolve for no reason. The coelacanth have more or less occupied the same niche all this time, and as such have had no need to evolve. They're surviving just fine.

.....so while Humans were 'magically' Evolving from something that supposedly looked like a Rat.......the Coelacanth Fish became "slightly different from those that lived (hundreds of) millions of years ago"

......and the Evolutionists explanation for this strange situation is that "the coelacanth have more or less occupied the same niche all this time"!!!

.....and as far as I can see, the Rat has ALSO more or less occupied the same niche, since the Fall!!!:D

.....could I gently remind you that the Evolutionist explanation used be that the Coelacanth Fish was a 'primitive ancestor' of 'modern fishes' that became extinct along with the Dinosaurs........
.......and that was the position until, somewhat embarassingly, for this 'just so' Evolutionist story....... the Coelacanth Fish was found to be alive and well and swimming happily in the Indian Ocean!!!!:eek::pac::)

wrote:

Originally Posted by Killbot 2000
Guess what, his team found Tiktaalik, an intermediate between sea and land! His site was in the Arctic circle so there was no element of blind luck here. He used his knowledge of stratigraphy palaeontology etc. to determine the best place to look and found exactly what he expected.

Originally Posted by J C
Where is the proof of these assertions???

Galvasean
I posted a link about it. Myself and Wolfsbane had a (coherent) discussion about it.
Here it is again:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

You may have had "a (coherent) discussion about it".......but I am STILL awaiting a reply from Killbot in relation to proof for his assertions above!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....could I gently remind you that the Evolutionist explanation used be that the Coelacanth Fish was a 'primitive ancestor' of 'modern fishes' that became extinct along with the Dinosaurs........
.......and that was the position until, somewhat embarassingly, for this 'just so' Evolutionist story, the Coelacanth Fish was found to be alive and well and swimming happily in the Indian Ocean!!!!:eek::pac::)

The discovery of new information is not embarrassing to any scientist - only enlightening. :pac:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

The discovery of new information is not embarrassing to any scientist - only enlightening. :pac:

.......it CAN be embarassing when it contradicts ALL of their previous pronouncements........

.......and completely invalidates their belief system!!!!!

..........but I can assure you that 'there is life after Evolution'........and becoming a non-believer (in Evolution) can be very liberating for your thought processes.......and very enlightening as well!!!!:eek::)

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Well maybe this is an misinterpretation on my part, but everytime i see the suggestion that we are apes made to creationists i witness a reaction of what could only be described as a bilious grimace.

The suggestion by Evolutionists that they are Apes usually brings a wry smile to Creationists!!!!:)

.....I find that the 'bilious grimace' is actually found amongst Evolutionists at the suggestion that they have spontaneously evolved from Muck.......
.......or when a Creationists smiles, at an Evolutionist who claims to be an Ape!!!!!:D

daithifleming wrote: »

The reason is that you guys believe that man is special on this earth, and that animals are lowly and here for our benefit only. How terrible it must be to hear that we are animals too.

Man is indeed OBJECTIVELY special (in numerous ways).......and the vast majority of Evolutionists ALSO support this contention........

......for example, the crime of murder is based upon the 'special' status of Humans......otherwise I would have gone to prison for a very long time, for swatting all those Flies, last summer!!!!:eek::D

.....and BTW Creation Scientists accept that Mankind is technically a member of the Animal Kingdom.......actually the 'King' of the Animal Kingdom, so to speak!!!:D:)