Science isn’t always the answer.

[forkup]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.

Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?

Long link - thank you but it is hard to respond to so much, so I will zero in on one point from your link:

"Regrettably, development of foot structure in early Homo—i.e., between A. afarensis and Neanderthals—is virtually undocumented by skeletal evidence." The article goes on to discuss theories of bipedalism and admits weaknesses in those theories.

But a much simpler point is that australopithecines are extinct forms of apes, while Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man are human. On the other hand, Orce man may have been a donkey or a horse - or perhaps an ape? (See my thread on this).

I have not researched all of the above fossils but the main point is that species that begin with homo are human while species that begin with australo are apes.

Many do not realize the variation in brain size of current races, btw.

For example, what is the smallest brain size of current races? Are any current races of similar brain size to Homo Erectus?

Here is another link for you to examine:

“Ape-Men”—What Were They? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

The relevant portion is long - but shorter than the Britannica article you linked to.

To make it easier, here is a shorter excerpt:

"30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

31 So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”⁠43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”⁠44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”⁠45 Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”⁠46 Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”⁠47


32. If such creatures were still living today, how would they be regarded?


32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”⁠48 Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”⁠49"

References:

44. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.


45. Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.


46. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 38.


47. Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 86.


48. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.


49. New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172.

First finding things that are still uncertain in something as complex as human evolution in no way undermines the assertion that human evolution happened.

Second, you aren't making points you are making assertions. The article provides a summation of the plethora of fossil evidence of species that have both human and simian characteristics something that is the definition of transitional species. You can not simply state one fossil is simian with human traits and another is a human with ape traits because that's just arbitrary.

Some reason you did not respond to my specific points in post 100?

Btw - homology (similarities) does not imply decent. Have you researched pleiotropy?

So, what animal blood is closest to that of humans.

What animal is used for heart valves and skin?

What animal brain has the most folds comparable to humans?

What animal has the closest eye to humans?

I did respond to them. I responded by pointing out that being able to point to differences in physiology between different species and classifying them as one thing but not another regardless of the fact that there are similarities too is arbitrary. I'll put it like this. Would you accept me stating that Shaquille O'Neal isn't a human being on account of him being double my height and weight? Or a female not being one because of the obvious biological differences?

The hypothesis is simple. Did humankind evolve from apes?
-test one. The fossil record. The fossil record supports this. If you dig you will find in the different strata (deeper means earlier) that fossils are found that display characteristics of both human and ape. As you go later the fossils show that the characteristics start to display more and more of the former and less of the latter, until we come to modern man.
-test two. DNA. Geneticist by the simple expediency of calculating how similar the DNA codes are can calculate how closely related they are.

The two tests are mutually supportive since one can look at chronology in the strata to confirm the divergence of species.

 

[forkup]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.

Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25​

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​

​

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.​

​

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.​

​

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.​

​

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

​

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

Yawah and Jehoviah are one and the same. As for proof? Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.

Faith is nothing like science. Science requires someone to present evidence for their hypothesis and demands for that evidence to be peer-reviewed.
I have never, not ever seen any faith requiring anything of the sort. In fact faith actively discourages it and celebrates that it doesn't require any proof.

 

[forkup]

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

There is evidence all around you. The heavens declare the glory of God. There is also the evidence you have inside you. Your conscience declaring there is a God. Man, himself, is evidence. He has been made in God's image. A rational, thinking, creative, loving being with a free will.

I understand what you're saying, though, I can remember when I felt the same. I always think of the blind man that Jesus healed when He walked this earth. When the people asked this man (who had been blind from birth) how it was that he could see. His reply was the same as mine and other believers, "I don't know, but once I was blind and now I can see."

You are using the bible as evidence for the bible that is circular reasoning. We have been made in God's image right? And God is perfect right? The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body We have some pretty obvious design flaws.

 

[gtopa1]

lol. Popper is my go to bloke in these things.

Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,” Popper said. “It is a marvelous history. It makes you proud to be a human being.” Framing his face in his outstretched hands, Popper intoned, “I believe in the human mind.”

The Paradox of Karl Popper

The great philosopher, renowned for his ferocious attacks on scientific and political dogmatism, could be quite dogmatic

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Then applied the Scientific Method looking for inconsistencies, predictive strength etc etc etc...

Greg

 

[Hollie]

The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.

Or, it may be why we vestigial bones / organs in living things today.

Have you considered that maybe the gods have played a cruel joke on you? Those gods. They're such kidders.

Just because man can't figure things out, doesn't mean they have no purpose.

On the other hand, why would the gods magically create living things with parts they don't use? Do the gods maintain a spare parts store like some heavenly AutoZone?

Perhaps you think you're being clever.....but you're not.
You don't know they weren't used in the past or if they'll be used in the future. You just think you're smarter than you are. You create dilemmas in your mind that aren't actually dilemmas. They're simply beyond your understanding. Perhaps they are there to make people like you have something to stew over when they try to find fault with God.

In the future when we see humans bent over with long necks, we might wonder why. They say cell phones will cause that to happen.

I think you're missing the point. Vestigial bones are an indication that the bones served a purpose in the past and were remnants of biological change.

 

[Newtonian]

The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.

Or, it may be why we vestigial bones / organs in living things today.

Have you considered that maybe the gods have played a cruel joke on you? Those gods. They're such kidders.

Just because man can't figure things out, doesn't mean they have no purpose.

The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.

Or, it may be why we vestigial bones / organs in living things today.

Have you considered that maybe the gods have played a cruel joke on you? Those gods. They're such kidders.

Just because man can't figure things out, doesn't mean they have no purpose.

So true Barn Sour. For example, both the appendix and tonsils were once considered vestigial organs until scientists realized their functions.

Likewise, much of what was once considered junk DNA, namely tandem repeat sequences, has now been discovered to be a major cause of rapid micro-evolution such as the change in the Bull Terrier dog snout in 40 years. These skull changes would normally be interpreted by paleontologists to have taken millions of years - however, tandem repeats cause micro-evolution 100,000 times faster than point mutations! And they are all within the Biblical kind. See:

True. And, interestingly, both the appendix and tonsils were once considered "vestigial organs" by most scientists before they realized the functions of these 2 organs. More recently, so-called junk DNA has been identified as a major source of current micro-evolution. I have reference to tandem repeat sequences causing the rapid (40 year) change in skull shape and snout of the Bull Terrier. Tandem repeats, formerly called junk, are a major type of epigenetics. See:

Molecular origins of rapid and continuous morphological evolution

Mutations in cis-regulatory sequences have been implicated as being the predominant source of variation in morphological evolution. We offer a hypothesis that gene-associated tandem repeat expansions and contractions are a major source of phenotypic variation in evolution. Here, we describe a...

www.pnas.org

"Mutations in cis-regulatory sequences have been implicated as being the predominant source of variation in morphological evolution. We offer a hypothesis that gene-associated tandem repeat expansions and contractions are a major source of phenotypic variation in evolution. Here, we describe a comparative genomic study of repetitive elements in developmental genes of 92 breeds of dogs. We find evidence for selection for divergence at coding repeat loci in the form of both elevated purity and extensive length polymorphism among different breeds. Variations in the number of repeats in the coding regions of the Alx-4 (aristaless-like 4) and Runx-2 (runt-related transcription factor 2) genes were quantitatively associated with significant differences in limb and skull morphology."

Tandem repeat sequences are a major source of epigenetic coding causing variation within the Biblical "kind." There are also methyl links (aka methylization) of specific genes in DNA - but that is not fully epigenetic/outside the DNA either. Fully epigenetic coding involves what scientists formerly thought was the inert backbone of the chromosome: chromatin. It turns out that Methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin are also a major source of micro-evolution.

Concerning methyl "tags" to DNA (a type of epigenetics) see our literature here:

How Long Can You Live? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"Living cells contain genetic information, which is needed for the production of new cells. Much of this information is found in the genome, a term that refers to all the DNA in a cell. In recent times, however, scientists have delved deeper into another array of mechanisms within the cell—the epigenome, a word that can mean “above the genome.” Epigenetics is the study of this amazing group of mechanisms and their chemical reactions.

The molecules that make up the epigenome look nothing like DNA. Whereas DNA resembles a twisted ladder, or double helix, the epigenome is essentially a system of chemical marks, or tags, that attach to DNA. What is the role of the epigenome? Like a conductor directing an orchestra, the epigenome directs the way genetic information in the DNA is expressed. The molecular tags turn sets of genes on or off in response to both the needs of the cell and environmental factors, such as diet, stress, and toxins. Recent discoveries involving the epigenome have caused a revolution in the biological sciences, one that links epigenetics with specific diseases and even aging."

to be continued

 

[Newtonian]

lol. Popper is my go to bloke in these things.

Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,” Popper said. “It is a marvelous history. It makes you proud to be a human being.” Framing his face in his outstretched hands, Popper intoned, “I believe in the human mind.”

The Paradox of Karl Popper

The great philosopher, renowned for his ferocious attacks on scientific and political dogmatism, could be quite dogmatic

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Then applied the Scientific Method looking for inconsistencies, predictive strength etc etc etc...

Greg

Good point. Amazing what insights can "pop" into the human brain! (pun intended).

If I remember correctly, the predictive strength of the Higgs boson (dubbed "the God particle") recently proved both camps of scientific theory to be wrong - the values were in between what was predicted by both groups of scientists.

 

[Hollie]

The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.

Or, it may be why we vestigial bones / organs in living things today.

Have you considered that maybe the gods have played a cruel joke on you? Those gods. They're such kidders.

Just because man can't figure things out, doesn't mean they have no purpose.

True. And, interestingly, both the appendix and tonsils were once considered "vestigial organs" by most scientists before they realized the functions of these 2 organs. More recently, so-called junk DNA has been identified as a major source of current micro-evolution. I have reference to tandem repeat sequences causing the rapid (40 year) change in skull shape and snout of the Bull Terrier - see:

Molecular origins of rapid and continuous morphological evolution

Mutations in cis-regulatory sequences have been implicated as being the predominant source of variation in morphological evolution. We offer a hypothesis that gene-associated tandem repeat expansions and contractions are a major source of phenotypic variation in evolution. Here, we describe a...

www.pnas.org

Excerpt:





Tandem repeats, formerly called junk, are a major type of epigenetics.

The Bibles being “popular” says nothing about whether they are true. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason, not popularity. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

That must be why we see so many half ape/ half men walking around today.

When people have confidence in that claptrap, it's time for us to get rid of the public education system.

Or, it may be why we vestigial bones / organs in living things today.

Have you considered that maybe the gods have played a cruel joke on you? Those gods. They're such kidders.

Just because man can't figure things out, doesn't mean they have no purpose.

So true Barn Sour. For example, both the appendix and tonsils were once considered vestigial organs until scientists realized their functions.

Likewise, much of what was once considered junk DNA, namely tandem repeat sequences, has now been discovered to be a major cause of rapid micro-evolution such as the change in the Bull Terrier dog snout in 40 years. These skull changes would normally be interpreted by paleontologists to have taken millions of years - however, tandem repeats cause micro-evolution 100,000 times faster than point mutations! And they are all within the Biblical kind. See:

Molecular origins of rapid and continuous morphological evolution

Mutations in cis-regulatory sequences have been implicated as being the predominant source of variation in morphological evolution. We offer a hypothesis that gene-associated tandem repeat expansions and contractions are a major source of phenotypic variation in evolution. Here, we describe a...

www.pnas.org

"Mutations in cis-regulatory sequences have been implicated as being the predominant source of variation in morphological evolution. We offer a hypothesis that gene-associated tandem repeat expansions and contractions are a major source of phenotypic variation in evolution. Here, we describe a comparative genomic study of repetitive elements in developmental genes of 92 breeds of dogs. We find evidence for selection for divergence at coding repeat loci in the form of both elevated purity and extensive length polymorphism among different breeds. Variations in the number of repeats in the coding regions of the Alx-4 (aristaless-like 4) and Runx-2 (runt-related transcription factor 2) genes were quantitatively associated with significant differences in limb and skull morphology."

Tandem repeat sequences are a major source of epigenetic coding causing variation within the Biblical "kind." There are also methyl links (aka methylization) of specific genes in DNA - but that is not fully epigenetic/outside the DNA either. Fully epigenetic coding involves what scientists formerly thought was the inert backbone of the chromosome: chromatin. It turns out that Methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin are also a major source of micro-evolution.

Concerning methyl "tags" to DNA (a type of epigenetics) see our literature here:

How Long Can You Live? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"Living cells contain genetic information, which is needed for the production of new cells. Much of this information is found in the genome, a term that refers to all the DNA in a cell. In recent times, however, scientists have delved deeper into another array of mechanisms within the cell—the epigenome, a word that can mean “above the genome.” Epigenetics is the study of this amazing group of mechanisms and their chemical reactions.

The molecules that make up the epigenome look nothing like DNA. Whereas DNA resembles a twisted ladder, or double helix, the epigenome is essentially a system of chemical marks, or tags, that attach to DNA. What is the role of the epigenome? Like a conductor directing an orchestra, the epigenome directs the way genetic information in the DNA is expressed. The molecular tags turn sets of genes on or off in response to both the needs of the cell and environmental factors, such as diet, stress, and toxins. Recent discoveries involving the epigenome have caused a revolution in the biological sciences, one that links epigenetics with specific diseases and even aging."

to be continued

Vestigial bones and organs are well established topics in science.

Typically, and as expected, it is the creation ministries which rail against the science.

Claim CB360:
Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Response:

1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."
   
   Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.
   
   
2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

Links:
Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
References:

1. G. & C. Merriam. 1974. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster.
2. Morris, H., 1974. (see above).
3. Yamamoto, Y. and W. R. Jeffery., 2000. Central role for the lens in cave fish eye degeneration. Science 289: 631-633.

 

[Newtonian]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.

Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25​

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​

​

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.​

​

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.​

​

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.​

​

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

​

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

Yawah and Jehoviah are one and the same. As for proof? Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.

Faith is nothing like science. Science requires someone to present evidence for their hypothesis and demands for that evidence to be peer-reviewed.
I have never, not ever seen any faith requiring anything of the sort. In fact faith actively discourages it and celebrates that it doesn't require any proof.

Then, apparently, you have not studied the Greek text of the Biblical definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1!

Hebrews 11:1
Faith+ is the assured expectation* of things hoped+ for, the evident demonstration* of realities* though not beheld.+

NW ref. footnote on "evident demonstration" -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

“Evident demonstration.” Or, “convincing evidence.” Gr., eʹleg·khos; Lat., ar·gu·menʹtum. Compare Joh 16:8 ftn."

Convincing evidence is in harmony with the thought conveyed in the use of another Greek word (def.: be you proving) at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things" - KJV.

It seems likely you are not familiar with my religion either.

 

[Newtonian]

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

There is evidence all around you. The heavens declare the glory of God. There is also the evidence you have inside you. Your conscience declaring there is a God. Man, himself, is evidence. He has been made in God's image. A rational, thinking, creative, loving being with a free will.

I understand what you're saying, though, I can remember when I felt the same. I always think of the blind man that Jesus healed when He walked this earth. When the people asked this man (who had been blind from birth) how it was that he could see. His reply was the same as mine and other believers, "I don't know, but once I was blind and now I can see."

You are using the bible as evidence for the bible that is circular reasoning. We have been made in God's image right? And God is perfect right? The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body We have some pretty obvious design flaws.

True, man was created perfect but Adam and Eve ruined that. Now we inherit aging and death in our DNA (and epigenetics):

Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin,+ and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned+—.

 

[Mac1958]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Arrogance is convincing yourself that you have The Answer, in either direction.

No one knows. If you want to have faith that it's one of the 2,500 or so gods that humans have maintained over the millennia, great, cool, run with that.

Some of us admit we just don't know, that it's likely we won't know during our lifetime, and we accept that and move on to things over which we have more control.

Meanwhile, it's fun and interesting and stimulating, watching science try to figure stuff out, and learn as it goes.

I’ll translate what they were trying to say. Science doesn’t have all the answers and we as humans hate not knowing the answers to all our questions. So, since religion claims to have all the answers, they love it.

I do think that's a part of it. Religion ties everything with a neat little bow, and that's especially useful for those who just can't stand the void.

Believing in a loving, all-powerful god provides answers, clarity, guidance, comfort, hope, strength. That's all fine, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[forkup]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.

Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25​

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​

​

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.​

​

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.​

​

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.​

​

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

​

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

Yawah and Jehoviah are one and the same. As for proof? Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.

Faith is nothing like science. Science requires someone to present evidence for their hypothesis and demands for that evidence to be peer-reviewed.
I have never, not ever seen any faith requiring anything of the sort. In fact faith actively discourages it and celebrates that it doesn't require any proof.

Then, apparently, you have not studied the Greek text of the Biblical definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1!

Hebrews 11:1
Faith+ is the assured expectation* of things hoped+ for, the evident demonstration* of realities* though not beheld.+

NW ref. footnote on "evident demonstration" -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

“Evident demonstration.” Or, “convincing evidence.” Gr., eʹleg·khos; Lat., ar·gu·menʹtum. Compare Joh 16:8 ftn."

Convincing evidence is in harmony with the thought conveyed in the use of another Greek word (def.: be you proving) at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things" - KJV.

It seems likely you are not familiar with my religion either.

Show me this convincing evidence please. Convincing meaning evidence that can stand up under the scientific method. Show me a clear hypothesis a replicable test and a decent conclusion. By the way. Quote mining is easy to do. John 20:26–29 NASB95 - After eight days His… | Biblia See easy.

 

[forkup]

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

There is evidence all around you. The heavens declare the glory of God. There is also the evidence you have inside you. Your conscience declaring there is a God. Man, himself, is evidence. He has been made in God's image. A rational, thinking, creative, loving being with a free will.

I understand what you're saying, though, I can remember when I felt the same. I always think of the blind man that Jesus healed when He walked this earth. When the people asked this man (who had been blind from birth) how it was that he could see. His reply was the same as mine and other believers, "I don't know, but once I was blind and now I can see."

You are using the bible as evidence for the bible that is circular reasoning. We have been made in God's image right? And God is perfect right? The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body We have some pretty obvious design flaws.

True, man was created perfect but Adam and Eve ruined that. Now we inherit aging and death in our DNA (and epigenetics):

Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin,+ and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned+—.

So you are asserting that before original sin mankind had different tracks for eating and breathing? A bigger birth canal. A better-designed spine, etc. etc.? Or is that you assert that a perfect design means the ability to choke to death or dying in childbirth?

 

[Hollie]

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

There is evidence all around you. The heavens declare the glory of God. There is also the evidence you have inside you. Your conscience declaring there is a God. Man, himself, is evidence. He has been made in God's image. A rational, thinking, creative, loving being with a free will.

I understand what you're saying, though, I can remember when I felt the same. I always think of the blind man that Jesus healed when He walked this earth. When the people asked this man (who had been blind from birth) how it was that he could see. His reply was the same as mine and other believers, "I don't know, but once I was blind and now I can see."

You are using the bible as evidence for the bible that is circular reasoning. We have been made in God's image right? And God is perfect right? The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body We have some pretty obvious design flaws.

True, man was created perfect but Adam and Eve ruined that. Now we inherit aging and death in our DNA (and epigenetics):

Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin,+ and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned+—.

Rather petty, vindictive gods who would punish all mankind for failing a "test" they knew humans would fail.

 

[Newtonian]

Holie - remember (as you often forget) we are not creationists - rather, we believe in the Biblical account of Creation. You continue to cut and paste. You posted:

"eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000),"

Have you forgotten the role of mutations? Harmful mutations, as you have pointed out, depend on environment. But is what you are referring to an example of point mutations or epigenetic coding?

Jehovah designed forms of life with mechanisms for variation which allow for adaptation to different environments. For example, methyl tags to genes on the DNA turn genes on or off or in between. These variations are all within the Biblical kind.

Dobzhansky produced many variations in the fruit fly (Drosophila) - even different 'species' of fruit fly. But they all were within the fruit fly 'kind." Dobzhansky also observed the phenomenon of equilibrium: variation about a mean/average. This phenomenon keeps variation within the Biblical kind.

 

[Newtonian]

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

There is evidence all around you. The heavens declare the glory of God. There is also the evidence you have inside you. Your conscience declaring there is a God. Man, himself, is evidence. He has been made in God's image. A rational, thinking, creative, loving being with a free will.

I understand what you're saying, though, I can remember when I felt the same. I always think of the blind man that Jesus healed when He walked this earth. When the people asked this man (who had been blind from birth) how it was that he could see. His reply was the same as mine and other believers, "I don't know, but once I was blind and now I can see."

You are using the bible as evidence for the bible that is circular reasoning. We have been made in God's image right? And God is perfect right? The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body We have some pretty obvious design flaws.

True, man was created perfect but Adam and Eve ruined that. Now we inherit aging and death in our DNA (and epigenetics):

Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin,+ and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned+—.

So you are asserting that before original sin mankind had different tracks for eating and breathing? A bigger birth canal. A better-designed spine, etc. etc.?

I stated what I stated not what you claim I asserted. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I specifically referred to aging and death(Romans 5:12) - we do know these are inherited from our original parents. The mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam had the mechanisms responsible for aging and death in their genes.

Mutations have made matters worse.

 

[Hollie]

Holie - remember (as you often forget) we are not creationists - rather, we believe in the Biblical account of Creation. You continue to cut and paste. You posted:

"eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000),"

Have you forgotten the role of mutations? Harmful mutations, as you have pointed out, depend on environment. But is what you are referring to an example of point mutations or epigenetic coding?

Jehovah designed forms of life with mechanisms for variation which allow for adaptation to different environments. For example, methyl tags to genes on the DNA turn genes on or off or in between. These variations are all within the Biblical kind.

Dobzhansky produced many variations in the fruit fly (Drosophila) - even different 'species' of fruit fly. But they all were within the fruit fly 'kind." Dobzhansky also observed the phenomenon of equilibrium: variation about a mean/average. This phenomenon keeps variation within the Biblical kind.

You have offered nothing to indicate that any gods were responsible for any design. Your claims to designer gods are absent support and are nothing more than typical creationist dogma.

We have a responsibility to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

Proponents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam each must show why their source material (Bible, Koran) establishes their claims as true and the other(s) not. Why one having preeminence over the other? What's missing from the formula that each can insist theirs is valid and the other is not?

The standards of proof of course.

 

[Hollie]

Holie - remember (as you often forget) we are not creationists - rather, we believe in the Biblical account of Creation. You continue to cut and paste. You posted:

"eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000),"

Have you forgotten the role of mutations? Harmful mutations, as you have pointed out, depend on environment. But is what you are referring to an example of point mutations or epigenetic coding?

Jehovah designed forms of life with mechanisms for variation which allow for adaptation to different environments. For example, methyl tags to genes on the DNA turn genes on or off or in between. These variations are all within the Biblical kind.

Dobzhansky produced many variations in the fruit fly (Drosophila) - even different 'species' of fruit fly. But they all were within the fruit fly 'kind." Dobzhansky also observed the phenomenon of equilibrium: variation about a mean/average. This phenomenon keeps variation within the Biblical kind.

I have to note that creationists have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.

 

[Newtonian]

YU

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

There is evidence all around you. The heavens declare the glory of God. There is also the evidence you have inside you. Your conscience declaring there is a God. Man, himself, is evidence. He has been made in God's image. A rational, thinking, creative, loving being with a free will.

I understand what you're saying, though, I can remember when I felt the same. I always think of the blind man that Jesus healed when He walked this earth. When the people asked this man (who had been blind from birth) how it was that he could see. His reply was the same as mine and other believers, "I don't know, but once I was blind and now I can see."

You are using the bible as evidence for the bible that is circular reasoning. We have been made in God's image right? And God is perfect right? The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body We have some pretty obvious design flaws.

True, man was created perfect but Adam and Eve ruined that. Now we inherit aging and death in our DNA (and epigenetics):

Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin,+ and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned+—.

Rather petty, vindictive gods who would punish all mankind for failing a "test" they knew humans would fail.

Yes, if Christendom is right about everything going according to God's plan in their doctrines of omniscience and pre-destination. You have pointed out one of the reasons they are wrong.

Genesis 6:6 proves the opposite - otherwise why was Jehovah "hurt at heart" over the outcome?

Btw, elohim could be the literal plural "gods." However, in Scripture it is usually the plural of excellence of singular individuals. This is why Jehovah referred to Moses as elohim in Exodus 4:16; 7:1.

 

[forkup]

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

There is evidence all around you. The heavens declare the glory of God. There is also the evidence you have inside you. Your conscience declaring there is a God. Man, himself, is evidence. He has been made in God's image. A rational, thinking, creative, loving being with a free will.

I understand what you're saying, though, I can remember when I felt the same. I always think of the blind man that Jesus healed when He walked this earth. When the people asked this man (who had been blind from birth) how it was that he could see. His reply was the same as mine and other believers, "I don't know, but once I was blind and now I can see."

You are using the bible as evidence for the bible that is circular reasoning. We have been made in God's image right? And God is perfect right? The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body We have some pretty obvious design flaws.

True, man was created perfect but Adam and Eve ruined that. Now we inherit aging and death in our DNA (and epigenetics):

Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin,+ and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned+—.

So you are asserting that before original sin mankind had different tracks for eating and breathing? A bigger birth canal. A better-designed spine, etc. etc.?

I stated what I stated not what you claim I asserted. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I specifically referred to aging and death(Romans 5:12) - we do know these are inherited from our original parents. The mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam had the mechanisms responsible for aging and death in their genes.

Mutations have made matters worse.

I offered up a link citing undeniable flaws in how humans are designed. Undeniable because they cause a higher chance of discomfort, pain, and even death. You came back stating mankind was created perfect until Adam and Eve ruined that. Implying those flaws are a result of original sin. So that's how I deduced your meaning.