BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser


Go Back   BHM Forum > After Sunset > Philosophy

Philosophy Any non-religious philosophical discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-16-2013, 05:10 PM
Merchant Seaman Male Merchant Seaman is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer View Post
I note your last paragraph, when you state that God is outside your own human construction, would you want Him to be otherwise? If He were, He's not the God but a god.

You say, "It's not for me to tell God how he did things," but when you choose to believe and defend the theories of Darwin, you are doing just that, instead of believing what God said as my small student told me years ago.

Yes, no mortal man can comprehend the mind of God, but fortunate for us, He has left us His word.

The trouble arrives when we try to do as catholocism and so many liberal protestants have done in trying to make a marriage of the two.

The Bible says: "Can two walk together if they are not agreed? What fellowship hath light with darkness? . .. . Let God be true . .."
Believe as you wish, I'll believe as I wish, God speaks to people in the ways they are most likely to hear.

If you get the chance I would recommend you see the films Ushpizin (in Hebrew but with English subtitles) and The Quarrel

Last edited by Merchant Seaman; 07-16-2013 at 05:13 PM. Reason: add a P.S.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-17-2013, 05:43 PM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,486
Default

OT: I wanted to offer a diplomatic way for both the fundamentalists and the scientists to save face, but since you prefer to argue: religion is pure fantasy- a figment of Man's imagination. One cannot "know" there is a God. One can only hope.

There can be no proof that God exists. And the theory that there is a God cannot be tested, therefore it is not a theory.

If you can use "the wonders of nature" as proof there is a God, then why can't evolutionists use observations of nature as proof of evolution?

BTW- there are numerous examples of evolution being observed in progress. Antibiotic resistance is but one example. The famous B. betularia white butterfly becoming a population of black butterflies over the course of a few years as the industrial revolution started is another. The list goes on and on. Then there's the corroborating evidence of DNA analysis proving the mechanism.

While no theory is ever absolutely proven, the theory of evolution is one of the most certain in all of science.

Neandertal Man was certainly a different species than us. He used fire, made tools, decorated his body and clothes, buried his dead ritualistically, had a voice box, so he probably had language. Our ancestors may have mated with him. Was he human? Did he have a soul? Why doesn't the Bible mention him?

Religion doesn't stand up to the logical questions of the real world very well. It's probably best to keep it in the private realm of our minds. Didn't Christ warn us to pray in private and not on the street corners like the hypocrites?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-17-2013, 09:06 PM
jvcstone jvcstone is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldTimer
Evolution has not been observed anywhere, therefore it is but theory and has not been observed as fact. Fact can be observed to be so.
Sorry, but that statement is just not true. Evolution of species is observed all of the time--as Seaman stated--in critters that reproduce rapidly. Another thing that needs to be cleared up---Primates are all of the different animals within the order Primates. All those animals make up the numerous families which in turn are full of different genus, and species. We are Homo (Genus) Sapiens (Sp.) We are currently the only species within the genus Homo. Gorillas are of the genus gorilla-Chimps are genus Pan. Breeding a human to a gorilla is no more likely than a clam and oyster having off spring together. There is some interbreeding between closely related species (same genus?) but off spring are always sterile--mules for example. Dogs on the other hand can cross breed at will since they are all in the same species. All of these classifications were established well before the discovery of DNA. The study of DNA indicates that all living things have more in common than differences, which indicates the close relationship we all share with even bacteria and protozoans.

As for creationism, believe in it if you like, but be aware that today's creationism is no different than the creationism that was rampant during the 15th and 16th centuries, and was slowly debunked through discovery and observation--If you have an open mind on the subject, a book called "The Rocks Don't Lie" by David R. Montgomery ( http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...rocks+dont+lie ) is a very- good read.

On other thing--if a human is not an animal, the only other thing it can be is a plant.

JVC
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-17-2013, 09:20 PM
billygoatgruff Male billygoatgruff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 203
Default

doc,

I didn't find your answer to whether humans were primates in the thread. Care to share?

As for evolution, or de-evolution, they both fall to the illogic that there is a desired state that is better. At our level, we are playing god when we say this or that state is better. Or perhaps it is just humans being humans. There are always tradeoffs, in this world at least. Side effects aren't side effects, doc, they are just undesired effects that we sometimes have to put up with.

The origin of species is one thing, evolution brings in more, to me, at least. How far back does your evolution go?

I have serious reservations about the big bang 'something from nothing' theory, but, I also have serious reservations about the 'dirty snowball' theory of comets. Call me a creationist if we are going back to the big bang. I want to know where did it all come from? Where is all the antimatter if nothing was separated into matter and antimatter? Etc, etc.

Don't know. That is the only answer I can give and consider my self honest.

I truly do suspect that much of the argument is about what 'is' is. Substitute any word you want for the 'is' and argument ensues. IMO

In this thread it appears that primate was substituted. Oh, well.

John
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-18-2013, 06:57 AM
Doninalaska Doninalaska is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,641
Default

I just read that someone (I can't recall who) said that a human is a soul wrapped in an animal.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-18-2013, 10:08 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 219
Default

I am an animal. I am a mammal. I am a primate. I wish that I was a more elegant mammal, such as a tiger, or a grizzly bear. But, alas, I am a slow moving, goofy-looking human. Well, at least I have opposable thumbs.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-19-2013, 09:03 PM
oldtimer oldtimer is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: great plains
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvcstone View Post
Sorry, but that statement is just not true. Evolution of species is observed all of the time--as Seaman stated--in critters that reproduce rapidly. Another thing that needs to be cleared up---Primates are all of the different animals within the order Primates. All those animals make up the numerous families which in turn are full of different genus, and species. We are Homo (Genus) Sapiens (Sp.) We are currently the only species within the genus Homo. Gorillas are of the genus gorilla-Chimps are genus Pan. Breeding a human to a gorilla is no more likely than a clam and oyster having off spring together. There is some interbreeding between closely related species (same genus?) but off spring are always sterile--mules for example. Dogs on the other hand can cross breed at will since they are all in the same species. All of these classifications were established well before the discovery of DNA. The study of DNA indicates that all living things have more in common than differences, which indicates the close relationship we all share with even bacteria and protozoans.

As for creationism, believe in it if you like, but be aware that today's creationism is no different than the creationism that was rampant during the 15th and 16th centuries, and was slowly debunked through discovery and observation--If you have an open mind on the subject, a book called "The Rocks Don't Lie" by David R. Montgomery ( http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...rocks+dont+lie ) is a very- good read.

On other thing--if a human is not an animal, the only other thing it can be is a plant.

JVC


I love the "observable" part. Yet they continue to fail to show true evolution as observed. Rapid growing populations undergoing change? Duh, I am rather slow growing but I've obviously undergone change. I never had a beard when I was a child. Am I evolving into something else.

When we "observe" these "evolutionary changes" it is interesting to note no one can show something that is actually evolving into another species. Hogs begat hogs, not dogs. Yes, DNA shows our commonality which shows our common designer, (Ford didn't have to reinvent the wheel to build the Model T) Neither did God reinvent life each time he made a new creature. We naturally have similarities, but we have significant enough differences that species stay the same and the only places the missing link between species exists is in some drawing made in some evolutianary science book.

I don't know much about your ancestors, but I know mine didn't swing from a tree.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-19-2013, 09:23 PM
oldtimer oldtimer is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: great plains
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
OT: I wanted to offer a diplomatic way for both the fundamentalists and the scientists to save face, but since you prefer to argue:
I find it interesting when the Bible comes into any conversation that there are those who then consider it an argument. I thought it was discussion. There is truth and there is fiction. A person has a right to be wrong if they want to. Save face? That's why I'm a fundmentalist. I don't think I need to "save face" as you put it. A fundamentalist is one who believes their beliefs and word view are correct. I'll guarantee the day is coming when we will find out who's right.
religion is pure fantasy- a figment of Man's imagination.

What do you mean by religion? Religion is a belief system. Even Darwinism can be considered a religion.
One cannot "know" there is a God. One can only hope.

I know because what He has done for me. Hope? Absolutely I hope, but I don't just hope, I have hope.

I don't need to know all the scientific workings and understandings to know that I plug the radio in to make it work. I accept it

There can be no proof that God exists.

I can't see the wind, so it doesn't exist? No, I can see the winds effect and the same can be said of God, we don't see Him but we can see what he does. And the theory that there is a God cannot be tested, therefore it is not a theory.

THat the world is millions of years old can not be tested, so it's not a theory?
If you can use "the wonders of nature" as proof there is a God, then why can't evolutionists use observations of nature as proof of evolution?

BTW- there are numerous examples of evolution being observed in progress. Antibiotic resistance is but one example. Really? What is that bacteria becoming? Something new? No, it's just that it resists antibiotics. The famous B. betularia white butterfly becoming a population of black butterflies over the course of a few years as the industrial revolution started is another.

That's evolution? Changing color? Gee, I was blonde, then I turned brown headed, now I'm turning grey, I am evolving?
So a brown cow and a white cow are "proofs" of evolution?
Humans are evolving as blonde heads and blue eyes are becoming less prevalent as different ethnic groups intermarry?

I suppose the cases where black children were born to two white parents, that's a "proof" of evolution? That's racist. Oh, but we fail to remember that one of Darwin's beliefs was that some how the black people were not as fully evolved as white people. Their black skin made them closer to the apes than anglosaxons. Are you going to defend that argument or conveniently forget that part.

The list goes on and on. Then there's the corroborating evidence of DNA analysis proving the mechanism.
Yes the list goes on of the bigoted racist insanity taught in the name of science by Darwin and many like him but we've conveniently chosen what we'll keep and what we'll dump of his teachings.
While no theory is ever absolutely proven, the theory of evolution is one of the most certain in all of science.
Again, certain? Because you say so? Where's the link?
Neandertal Man was certainly a different species than us.

Where is he? You have fossilized evidence. You saw him? You know what he did? He used fire, made tools, decorated his body and clothes, buried his dead ritualistically, had a voice box, so he probably had language. Our ancestors may have mated with him. Was he human? Did he have a soul? Why doesn't the Bible mention him? You answered it already. Because he didn't exist except in a fertile imagination and in some book falsely called true science.

Religion doesn't stand up to the logical questions of the real world very well. It's probably best to keep it in the private realm of our minds. Didn't Christ warn us to pray in private and not on the street corners like the hypocrites?
Again, by attackiing religion you mean chrstianity, right?

Logical questions of a real world can only be answered by God, not man.

Friend, if when I've lived my life and I come to find out I'm wrong, I've really missed nothing, but if you come to the end of your life and find out you're wrong, then you really have missed everything.

Oh, I'll pray for you in private. I'll be driving when I'm on the street.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-19-2013, 11:58 PM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,486
Default

I originally entered this discussion to point out that any discussion of science into which someone interjects religion brings the discussion to a halt: you cannot argue religion because there is no right or wrong about it and no proof, one way or the other, can be offered. Religion is merely a personal thought process.

It's just like a rainbow. Several people can claim to see a rainbow at the same time, but, being an optical illusion, each person sees their own rainbow. The rainbow is not a real, tangible thing, only a concept.

Religion serves a purpose for many people: a set of rules for life, support & strength in times of need, etc. But, if we were all fundamentalists, human knowledge & discovery would never make any progress because we'd be stuck with only what the Bible covers.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-20-2013, 12:47 AM
jvcstone jvcstone is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,830
Default

In response to Old Timer this is a quote from a book that has been very important to me:

"'There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.'" - Herbert Spencer-

JVC



Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-20-2013, 03:36 AM
krapgame's Avatar
krapgame krapgame is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Right here
Posts: 1,075
Default

Be it the religion of science, or of Christianity or of Islam or whatever, there is one thing that all religions have in common; the belief that they are the only true religion.

I know that this post is completely off topic, but it appears that this thread has already drifted completely off topic, so hopefully one more off topic posting won't matter.

In response to the inferences that religion can't be proven, I disagree. I offer the following to support that position;

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/tria...=9781596054554

and

http://fredsitelive.com/books/religion/genescott.htm

The latter I found to be the most compelling argument in favor of the existence of Christ that I had ever experienced. I admit that I was a devout agnostic at the time I heard this. Both of these are very logical approaches to evaluating the accounts of the witnesses presented in the New Testament to the life, death and resurrection of Christ. They lay the groundwork for the logical arguments that if Christ existed, as portrayed in the Bible, then He also had a divinity to his nature which made him "good," ie. incapable of lying, therefore all of that which He said was true. And if all he said be true, it imparted de facto credibility to all parts of the Bible which He referenced. As well as the other books He referenced, which weren't canonized into our current Bible, but were included in the scriptures of His day.

This is a logical argument, based on the evidences available to us today. No different than the logical argument made by science that since all species share common DNA and since the fossil records show that when X ceased to exist and Y began to exist, therefore X must have somehow evolved into Y. There is a certain logic to that, but there is no tangible evidence of it. Neither line of logic can be conclusively proven or disproven presently. Each must be accepted on an individual basis, based upon the frame of reference of the observer.

Now, lest I be dismissed as a "fundamentalist," let me dispel that idea now. I have never believed that the entirety of the information of the universe is contained within the Bible. I firmly believe in the scientific process. Just as I believe that many Christians hold to a myopic point of view that limits them to only that which they believe that the King James said, I also believe that many scientists dismiss many ideas simply because they coincide with beliefs held by persons of "organized religions." If, as was stated, God can't exist because his existence can't be tested, maybe that is simply because we haven't reached a level of sophistication yet to be able to test at that level. Just as we couldn't test radioactivity 200 years ago, because we lacked the sophistication to do so, the existence of radioactivity wasn't any less real. Perhaps someday we will reach that level of sophistication, or maybe not. As C S Lewis said, "it's as blasphemous to define God as it is to deny Him."

As for evolution, please cite one example of scientific evidence where any species was shown to evolve into another new and distinct species. AFAIK, it doesn't exist. There are many examples of evolution within a species, but trans-species evolution can only be proven to exist within the petri dishes of modern science. But evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology doesn't provide them. I don't oppose the idea that God very well may have created many species through the eons of time using evolution had he chosen to do so. However, Genesis clearly states that Adam was a created being, complete and in finished form, regardless of how anything else may have been "created." This doesn't dismiss the idea that his descendants very well may have crossed with other species after the fact, but that doesn't negate the divine creation of Adam himself. After all, Genesis itself says that Adam looked for companionship in the other animals but found none, hence Eve was created. A person can draw that out to a very crude, ludicrous extreme.

Personally, I have come to believe that, in many instances, science and religion are akin to the two blind men trying to describe an elephant. Each of them are describing the part which they are in contact with, yet each are in contact with different parts. Neither capable of realizing that they are each describing the same thing and arguing because what the other experiences is different. I also believe in a God who is big enough that He won't fall off His throne simply because we question these things. Personally, I believe that He's pleased that we care enough to search for the answers.

To address the OP, are we primates, IMO it's very possible. Sometimes I think we're devolving be more akin to them all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-20-2013, 03:22 PM
jvcstone jvcstone is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krapgame
But evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology doesn't provide them.
I believe that the evolution of foraminifera disproves that statement, and is not the only group of critters, but most abundant, that species evolution is demonstrated in the fossil record (horses for instance).

The evolutionary time lines of forams is well known, and used to date geologic strata on an almost daily basis in the oil patch.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramfr.html

you can use the worn out arguement about "intermediate species" all you want, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and hasn't since about the 17th century when the follower's of Bishop Ussher ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher ) had to admit defeat in the face of ever mounting geological evidence. Modern creationism is nothing more than a repeat of 14th century ideas, long discounted.

And, I for one have no trouble reconciling a believe in "God" and an understanding of the scientific method, and I'm sure many other scientists would agree with that.

JVC
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-20-2013, 04:02 PM
Merchant Seaman Male Merchant Seaman is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer View Post


I love the "observable" part. Yet they continue to fail to show true evolution as observed.
.
Sorry but you are incorrect, this has been well observed.

Then there is the not so small fact that we also observe things that are well in excess of 6000 light years away, thereby proving that the universe is much more than 6000 years old, indeed it can be well proven that the universe is closer to 14 billion years old, and the earth is around 4.5 billion years old
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-20-2013, 06:02 PM
krapgame's Avatar
krapgame krapgame is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Right here
Posts: 1,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvcstone View Post
you can use the worn out arguement about "intermediate species" all you want, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and hasn't since about the 17th century when the follower's of Bishop Ussher ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher ) had to admit defeat in the face of ever mounting geological evidence. Modern creationism is nothing more than a repeat of 14th century ideas, long discounted.
Let's be clear; Just because Bishop Ussher said the world was only 6000 years old doesn't mean that the Bible said it was only 6000 years old. AFAIC, his work was only barely useful in demonstrating the timeline of the descendants of Adam, and not much else. Research will lead to the conclusion that there was a significant passage of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. Perhaps a more correct interpretation of the ambiguous Hebrew of Gen 1:2 would be "And the Earth became a waste and a desolation" which would support this idea, as does references made in other apocrypha. Then there is the debate of literal days vs: figurative days. So, while the Bible may say there was ~6000 years from the time of Adam until now, I don't see anywhere that it says the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Point being, IF God exists, and IF He is the all powerful being that He represents himself to be, then who am I to try to create constraints on how he conducts His activities? If He chose to create through evolution or through divine, spontaneous creation, that's His business. With the exception of Adam, I don't see that the Bible gives enough information for us to conclusively say how He conducted the minutia of His business. I personally give some credence to the notion that there were two events where man was created; IIRC, one instance referred to created "man" as ishi, while the the other referred to him as Adam. How ishi was "created" I believe to be open for debate. Adam's creation was much more clear. One could legitimately argue that if, after eviction from the garden of Eden, the descendants of Adam mated with the descendants of ishi, this could constitute an evolutionary step in our lineage. And if the line of ishi evolved over millenia into something other than their original form before encountering the line of Adam, so what? God is still God and He can conduct His business as He sees fit.

I personally don't think that any Christian with more than two functioning brain cells gives credence to the Ussher 6000 year age of the Earth theory in this day and age, so we need to just let that one go. Science also used to teach as fact that the earth was the center of the solar system (Aristotle and Ptolemy, among others). This too has since been disproven, but we don't still beat scientists over the head with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvcstone View Post
And, I for one have no trouble reconciling a believe in "God" and an understanding of the scientific method, and I'm sure many other scientists would agree with that.
I would agree, many true scientists don't. However, there does still exist a faction of scientists (seemingly disproportionately represented in academia) who appear to be so threatened by the notion of an "all powerful being" that they will use "science" to discredit that notion at every turn. In fairness, there also exists an equivalent faction in religion who are just as threatened by what science says. IMO, both are a result of beliefs based on how the Bible has been propagated rather than on what it actually says; the blind men and the elephant again. Jesus said "we make void the word of God with our traditions." I believe he was right. I've heard it said that all search for knowledge leads either to God or to questions that only He can ultimately answer. I'm OK with that too.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-10-2013, 03:32 AM
GREEN_ALIEN's Avatar
GREEN_ALIEN Male GREEN_ALIEN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Dakota ~ Zone 5A
Posts: 240
Talking MMM HOT GORILLA BABE....

Quote:
Originally Posted by offgridbob View Post
What does it matter you say, well here is how it matters, If we were primates you could find a gorilla to mate with and you would have one ugly baby and we don't want a bunch of ugly babys running around now do we ?
ogb, in your mixing pot you left out that nature could go the other direction and the cross would result in one hot gorilla babe... I might be for that a lil bit... lol
__________________
Real men have stood on the yellow footprints!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-21-2013, 08:19 PM
oldtimer oldtimer is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: great plains
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,658
Default

Yes,
And that contempt for the Almighty is what makes man think he's smarter than his Creator and keeps man from coming to faith in God for God has already visited us.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-11-2013, 03:10 PM
recoilless_57mm's Avatar
recoilless_57mm Male recoilless_57mm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 407
Default

Does knuckle dragging my way through life count?
__________________
Be polite, be professional and have a plan to deal with everyone you meet.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-12-2014, 12:39 AM
ReformedPresbyterian's Avatar
ReformedPresbyterian Male ReformedPresbyterian is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4
Default

Admin delete post #58. This individual post, as it was posted in error.

Last edited by ReformedPresbyterian; 03-12-2014 at 12:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-12-2014, 12:51 AM
ReformedPresbyterian's Avatar
ReformedPresbyterian Male ReformedPresbyterian is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4
Default



No, I do not believe we have our origins as being the offspring of primates.



I would like to add that while I have never read Bishop Ussher, his scholarship is excellent for the time, even today, however, that doesn't mean that it is entirely accurate. It might be, but I have not done the research to investigate it.

I am a 6 - 24 hour day Young Earth Creationist, who believes that the created order is not more than 10,000 years old.

It should also be pointed out that the Bible has corrected science in the past with verification. Prior to the discovery of Red Shift scientists believed in an eternally existing universe. Edwin Hubble, who discovered Red Shift, proved that galaxies and stars are moving apart and that there was a singular point in which all matter had its start. Many get caught up in the Big Bang, and the billions of years, while ignoring the fact that what Hubble discovered was that the Universe was not eternal, that it had a beginning. As Genesis says, "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Something scientists, including Albert Einstein, believed that the Universe always existed. Einstein even fudged his math prior to that to make his math work for some of this theories.

So it isn't Science always proving the Bible wrong, there is some agreement.

Last edited by ReformedPresbyterian; 03-12-2014 at 01:03 AM. Reason: Addition...
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-12-2014, 01:21 AM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReformedPresbyterian View Post

The flaw in that graphic is youre ignoring the fact that there were genetic changes that occurred.

The lower primates seperated and evolved in a different direction.

The intermediate species you claim are "missing" are now extinct, just as the early versions of the other primates died out, leaving us with the present day versions

It only takes one or two changes in DNA to get a totaly different outcome
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.