Does anyone even listen to creationists these days?

[Kadagar_AV]

This is just a quick example of why if someone say they are a creationist 2015, you should just slowly back away... Avoid eye contact... And then just run. Not for your life, of course. They are not muslims. I just mean like, generally run because of sanity reasons.



If you don't bother watching the video, and HELL YES I want to avoid us having to watch idiotic videos to debate.

The main point is:

IF we are intelligently designed, how come the design is so god awful stupid? The video shows how we have inherited physiological traits that today do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD, but were well functioning when we were back in the ocean...

And then we just kind of rolled on with it, as it worked.

Not because it's intelligently designed, but because it works.



So, any christian fanboy want to step up and have a fight about creation?







* as a sidenote to all non-christians... I can well believe, among another things, that the universe WAS intelligently created. Lots of actual scientific theories would support it, the "We are Sims" one as an example (even if I personally dont put much faith in it, as there surely would be easier ways to calculate than making organisms... ((unless I just believe I am an organism!!??)).

I just find the idea that the CHRISTIAN intelligent design would be "correct" absolutely shocking, as that would go against pretty much everything we have learnt since having sharp minds away from an iron age desert tribe believing society thingy...*

[Fragony]

Even the pope believes in the big-bang theory and evolution.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Eh, that video reminded me of creationist textbooks where they focus on one isolated anatomical feature to try to prove/disprove entire theories of life that cover multiple disciplines.

Such details are, by themselves, useless in disproving much broader theories for the obvious reasons that:

a. They only address a tiny part of the wider theory
b. These fine points are themselves not fully understood, at least not with certainty

Humans are so different from our supposed ocean-based ancestors that there may well be some secondary function which the recurrent laryngeal nerve provides that we do not know of.

Although my argument above would not be sufficient against a comprehensive case which made a systematic attack on creationism; I would say it is enough to dismiss a lone point given in isolation.

The creation and evolution debate by nature covers a tonne of different disciplines - to claim victory on the grounds of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is clearly ridiculous. Worthwhile arguments must look at the bigger picture if they are to make a serious challenge to the foundations of creationist or evolutionist theory.

As I said in a thread not long ago, how do evolutionists reconcile a model which grants hundreds of thousands of years to human development from our more ape-like ancestors to our present selves; with the fact that agriculture, settlement and civilization appears uniformly across the world (in hugely different and isolated environments) within - according to their dating - around a 10,000 year timeframe?

Why did completely cut-off peoples living in totally different environments all become so smart in what would be - in evolutionary terms - not even a blink of the eye?

[Pannonian]

Eh, that video reminded me of creationist textbooks where they focus on one isolated anatomical feature to try to prove/disprove entire theories of life that cover multiple disciplines.

Such details are, by themselves, useless in disproving much broader theories for the obvious reasons that:

a. They only address a tiny part of the wider theory
b. These fine points are themselves not fully understood, at least not with certainty

Humans are so different from our supposed ocean-based ancestors that there may well be some secondary function which the recurrent laryngeal nerve provides that we do not know of.

Although my argument above would not be sufficient against a comprehensive case which made a systematic attack on creationism; I would say it is enough to dismiss a lone point given in isolation.

The creation and evolution debate by nature covers a tonne of different disciplines - to claim victory on the grounds of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is clearly ridiculous. Worthwhile arguments must look at the bigger picture if they are to make a serious challenge to the foundations of creationist or evolutionist theory.

As I said in a thread not long ago, how do evolutionists reconcile a model which grants hundreds of thousands of years to human development from our more ape-like ancestors to our present selves; with the fact that agriculture, settlement and civilization appears uniformly across the world (in hugely different and isolated environments) within - according to their dating - around a 10,000 year timeframe?

Why did completely cut-off peoples living in totally different environments all become so smart in what would be - in evolutionary terms - not even a blink of the eye?

Agriculture, leading to an ever greater proportion of the population not engaged in producing food but instead producing services or inventing stuff. With writing becoming more complex to keep track of the food surpluses, it's meant that intellectual development can span generations. And just about everything else has collected momentum from these two developments. Food and knowledge.

[Gilrandir]

IF we are intelligently designed, how come the design is so god awful stupid? The video shows how we have inherited physiological traits that today do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD, but were well functioning when we were back in the ocean...

How can you bemoan the stupidity of the design when you haven't fathomed the purposes a guy above might have in mind for us? What if he has prepared us for marine life after the Second Deluge?

Not because it's intelligently designed, but because it works.

Windows Vista?

So, any christian fanboy want to step up and have a fight about creation?

And now seriously: if you are really inclined to have such a discussion, you wouldn't get any because of the ultimately faulty approach.
Creation (for those who believe in it), as anything written in the Bible, is a matter of faith. Faith doesn't require (indeed doesn't brook) discussions and proof-giving. It is a take it or leave it - either you believe it (without any logical arguments and justifications) or you don't (without ..., er, read above). So those who do won't have any discussions with you, because if they do, well, they aren't faithful and aren't believers.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Agriculture, leading to an ever greater proportion of the population not engaged in producing food but instead producing services or inventing stuff. With writing becoming more complex to keep track of the food surpluses, it's meant that intellectual development can span generations. And just about everything else has collected momentum from these two developments. Food and knowledge.

I meant to present "agriculture, settlement and civilization" as a package, not to suggest that they are not directly related.

This package appears uniformly across the world within a Young Earth Creationist timeframe, indeed it fits very neatly with it. It makes a lot less sense with evolutionary theory, which posits that intelligent humans and proto-humans were roaming the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, during which time they became isolated from each other and were living in totally different environments with different wildlife, foodstuffs, potential crops, climates and demographic pressures - only to inexplicably develop the "package" of agriculture, settlement and civilization at almost once without any common evolutionary pressures.

[Pannonian]

I meant to present "agriculture, settlement and civilization" as a package, not to suggest that they are not directly related.

This package appears uniformly across the world within a Young Earth Creationist timeframe, indeed it fits very neatly with it. It makes a lot less sense with evolutionary theory, which posits that intelligent humans and proto-humans were roaming the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, during which time they became isolated from each other and were living in totally different environments with different wildlife, foodstuffs, potential crops, climates and demographic pressures - only to inexplicably develop the "package" of agriculture, settlement and civilization at almost once without any common evolutionary pressures.

There is a time border in the form of the last Ice Age. If you go by the Diamond idea of how civilisation evolved, you'd need an ice age-free expanse across Eurasia, which AFAIK limits civilisation to the last 10,000 years or so. Give some time for agriculture to be discovered and developed, and the time frame fits the so called young earth numbers fairly reasonably.

[Kralizec]

The creation and evolution debate by nature covers a tonne of different disciplines - to claim victory on the grounds of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is clearly ridiculous. Worthwhile arguments must look at the bigger picture if they are to make a serious challenge to the foundations of creationist or evolutionist theory.

A fairly well known example is the evolution of the eyeball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

The eyes of squids and octopuses don't have a blind spot like vertebrates do, because the nerve endings are on the rear side of the retina. Which makes complete sense, and which begs the question why this feature hasn't been incorporated in vertebrates.

I'd expect that an expert could name many more examples on the top of his head. These two just happen to be examples that are easily understood by laymen.

[Major Robert Dump]

I do because I am in the Philippines and these girls are so hot, and even the conservative ones dress in pretty much nothing because of the high temperature, and I would totally pretend to believe in god and go to church every sunday and doom my kids to Catholicism if it meant I was allowed to touch her with my penis even for like 4 seconds twice a week with the lights off. It is insane here. Death to America.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes of course I believe we are not related to primates

[Major Robert Dump]

No really I do

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Earth is not a closed system, evolution is the increasing order of molecules that have a sun to pump in what amounts to "free" energy. Creationism is absurd, agriculture developed in literally 3 major river bed areas within a handful of centuries and then spread from there. Some areas never developed agriculture until Europeans came by, hardly a universal phenomenon. I have been drinking white Russians for two days straight, I will not be defending this post in any rigorous manner, I am looking at you monty

[Montmorency]

Hell, I haven't even followed this thread.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Creationism is absurd, agriculture developed in literally 3 major river bed areas within a handful of centuries and then spread from there. Some areas never developed agriculture until Europeans came by, hardly a universal phenomenon.

This is wildly incorrect. According to the mainstream secular viewpoint, agriculture was developed in India 9000 BC (barley, wheat, jujube), Egypt in 8000 BC, China in 8000 BC (rice, millet, soy), Mesopotamia in 7000 BC (wheat, dates, peas, legumes, apples), Mexico in 7000 BC (maize, potato, peppers, beans), South America 7000 BC (potato, beans, coca), New Guinea 7000 BC (sugar cane, root crops).

Other areas that developed it slightly later mostly still developed it independently. For example North America in 1800 BC (sunflowers, tobacco, squash), Australia in 3000 BC (bush onions, millet, fish farms).

We're talking about a huge variety of crops in hugely different environments that have very varying degrees of susceptibility ot climate change etc. The only explanation for this sudden global onset is a rapid settlement of intelligent humans bringing their knowledge with them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is wildly incorrect. According to the mainstream secular viewpoint, agriculture was developed in India 9000 BC (barley, wheat, jujube), Egypt in 8000 BC, China in 8000 BC (rice, millet, soy), Mesopotamia in 7000 BC (wheat, dates, peas, legumes, apples), Mexico in 7000 BC (maize, potato, peppers, beans), South America 7000 BC (potato, beans, coca), New Guinea 7000 BC (sugar cane, root crops).

Other areas that developed it slightly later mostly still developed it independently. For example North America in 1800 BC (sunflowers, tobacco, squash), Australia in 3000 BC (bush onions, millet, fish farms).

We're talking about a huge variety of crops in hugely different environments that have very varying degrees of susceptibility ot climate change etc. The only explanation for this sudden global onset is a rapid settlement of intelligent humans bringing their knowledge with them.

From the pattern of agriculture emergence, your theory would state that these humans came from India since that was the first area that developed agriculture. Do we see the genetic evidence to back this up? Also, what you just listed fits my idea as long as I stipulate to leave out the Americas who I would consider to be concurrently developing agriculture at the same time as a mere coincidence (just as many scientific discoveries are made by two unconnected people at the same time). From Egypt, India and China their interactions with nomadic peoples slowly influenced these nearby hunter-gathers/pastoral group to convert to agriculture over time.

If you want my real opinion on this matter. I think the truth is a mixture of optimum climate conditions that allowed for low tech agriculture (much of what is now desert was once grassland and fertile) as well as what I described above. Certain areas which developed later as you mentioned could not have been completely ignorant of agriculture unless they were truly isolated (the level of long distance trade even back in ancient times is surprising, or at least it was to me in the textbooks I have read). North America consists mostly of harsh desert/flatlands, or cold tundra or extremely plentiful forests that probably encourage hunter-gatherer lifestyles due to the abundance of natural resources in (what is considered today) Eastern US. Australia is mostly desert and would be hard to achieve, so again no surprise it happened later there.


When we are talking about timelines which span across multiple millenniums, I think it is important to keep in mind the generations of contact which occur within a 1,000 years.

[Rhyfelwyr]

From the pattern of agriculture emergence, your theory would state that these humans came from India since that was the first area that developed agriculture. Do we see the genetic evidence to back this up? Also, what you just listed fits my idea as long as I stipulate to leave out the Americas who I would consider to be concurrently developing agriculture at the same time as a mere coincidence (just as many scientific discoveries are made by two unconnected people at the same time). From Egypt, India and China their interactions with nomadic peoples slowly influenced these nearby hunter-gathers/pastoral group to convert to agriculture over time.

If you want my real opinion on this matter. I think the truth is a mixture of optimum climate conditions that allowed for low tech agriculture (much of what is now desert was once grassland and fertile) as well as what I described above. Certain areas which developed later as you mentioned could not have been completely ignorant of agriculture unless they were truly isolated (the level of long distance trade even back in ancient times is surprising, or at least it was to me in the textbooks I have read). North America consists mostly of harsh desert/flatlands, or cold tundra or extremely plentiful forests that probably encourage hunter-gatherer lifestyles due to the abundance of natural resources in (what is considered today) Eastern US. Australia is mostly desert and would be hard to achieve, so again no surprise it happened later there.

When we are talking about timelines which span across multiple millenniums, I think it is important to keep in mind the generations of contact which occur within a 1,000 years.

If it was just a case of two independent developments in Asia-Africa-Europe and the Americas, I agree it could be a coincidence. But there were nine of these independent developments across the world. According to this article (which admits this presents something of a conundrum) these are the "Fertile Crescent, China, Mesoamerica, Andes/Amazonia, eastern United States, Sahel, tropical West Africa, Ethiopia and New Guinea".

My view of what happened is that a people with extensive knowledge of agriculture, seafaring, urban development etc first settled in the Middle East and then settled the world over a period of about 1,000 years. Regarding the dates I gave earlier - I wouldn't read too much into a variation of 1,000 years - the figures are extremely speculative since radiocarbon dating is not far short of useless for absolute dating - its use lies in relative dating which is used alongside much less precise theories to come up with dates. Their significance IMO is in showing a very sudden appearance of civilization across the whole world - something that doesn't fit with evolutionary models for human development.

Have you ever come across any of David Rohl's books or documentaries? He is a secular archaeologist and is (was?) Britain's top expert on the ancient Middle East - he does an excellent job at pointing out how flimsy current scientific interpretations of these ancient times are, as well as highlighting systematic problems in the scientific community, and in particular its failure to harmonize findings from different disciplines as well as its refusal to appreciate the value of literary sources for cultural reasons (eg, the perceived faith v science conflict which means even attempting to reconcile archaeological findings with literary accounts is a career-wrecker).

If you want a secular and serious critique of much of modern science and history, then he's your man.

[Husar]

How exactly does the invention of agriculture relate to the topic of intelligent design and history according to the bible?
Is your point that since agriculture only came up about 6000-700 years ago everywhere, this sort of proves that god created man back then and man spread around the globe?

[a completely inoffensive name]

If it was just a case of two independent developments in Asia-Africa-Europe and the Americas, I agree it could be a coincidence. But there were nine of these independent developments across the world. According to this article (which admits this presents something of a conundrum) these are the "Fertile Crescent, China, Mesoamerica, Andes/Amazonia, eastern United States, Sahel, tropical West Africa, Ethiopia and New Guinea".

My view of what happened is that a people with extensive knowledge of agriculture, seafaring, urban development etc first settled in the Middle East and then settled the world over a period of about 1,000 years. Regarding the dates I gave earlier - I wouldn't read too much into a variation of 1,000 years - the figures are extremely speculative since radiocarbon dating is not far short of useless for absolute dating - its use lies in relative dating which is used alongside much less precise theories to come up with dates. Their significance IMO is in showing a very sudden appearance of civilization across the whole world - something that doesn't fit with evolutionary models for human development.

Have you ever come across any of David Rohl's books or documentaries? He is a secular archaeologist and is (was?) Britain's top expert on the ancient Middle East - he does an excellent job at pointing out how flimsy current scientific interpretations of these ancient times are, as well as highlighting systematic problems in the scientific community, and in particular its failure to harmonize findings from different disciplines as well as its refusal to appreciate the value of literary sources for cultural reasons (eg, the perceived faith v science conflict which means even attempting to reconcile archaeological findings with literary accounts is a career-wrecker).

If you want a secular and serious critique of much of modern science and history, then he's your man.

A. You can't claim that radiocarbon dating is both useless and then claim that the dates of agriculture derived from radiocarbon dating is definitive.

B. 1,000 years is a long time, again stop saying that all these areas are somehow connected because they all saw agriculture develop along a very long time. Assume that most regions had established agriculture by 6500BC, with agriculture starting in 8000BC. If we take agriculture to be the birth of "modern human history" then this major development takes up ~1,500 years/(8,000 BC to 2,000 AD) = ~15% of all of "modern human history".

C. I am worried that you have a theory in your head and you are just looking for any sort of justification to shed doubt on what is otherwise established science.

[Gilrandir]

I have been drinking white Russians for two days straight, I will not be defending this post in any rigorous manner, I am looking at you monty

Hell, I haven't even followed this thread.

He meant not the thread but drinking. Hell, if there's virtual sex, why can't you two engage in virtual drinking?

The whole personal relationship with Jesus thing of the modern apostolic churches/pentecostals or how they are called in English is about god being right there and you getting in touch with him and he will let you know what he wants from you.

Which means that anyone can be a prophet. Up with private propheting!!! Sounds sensible.

According to the mainstream secular viewpoint, agriculture was developed in India 9000 BC (barley, wheat, jujube), Egypt in 8000 BC, China in 8000 BC (rice, millet, soy), Mesopotamia in 7000 BC (wheat, dates, peas, legumes, apples), Mexico in 7000 BC (maize, potato, peppers, beans), South America 7000 BC (potato, beans, coca), New Guinea 7000 BC (sugar cane, root crops).

Yet having appeared relatively simultaneously, each civilization went its own pace in development. So some other factors were at work besides simple evolution.

[Husar]

Which means that anyone can be a prophet. Up with private propheting!!! Sounds sensible.

Private propheting? Should that be a government thing where only Merkel and Putin can receive and interprete god's words?

[Gilrandir]

Private propheting? Should that be a government thing where only Merkel and Putin can receive and interprete god's words?

... and then go and collect their Nobel Prize. Guess the category yourself. Wait, it is a wrong thread. Well, disregard it.

[total relism]

This is just a quick example of why if someone say they are a creationist 2015, you should just slowly back away... Avoid eye contact... And then just run. Not for your life, of course. They are not muslims. I just mean like, generally run because of sanity reasons.



If you don't bother watching the video, and HELL YES I want to avoid us having to watch idiotic videos to debate.

The main point is:

IF we are intelligently designed, how come the design is so god awful stupid? The video shows how we have inherited physiological traits that today do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD, but were well functioning when we were back in the ocean...

And then we just kind of rolled on with it, as it worked.

Not because it's intelligently designed, but because it works.



So, any christian fanboy want to step up and have a fight about creation?







* as a sidenote to all non-christians... I can well believe, among another things, that the universe WAS intelligently created. Lots of actual scientific theories would support it, the "We are Sims" one as an example (even if I personally dont put much faith in it, as there surely would be easier ways to calculate than making organisms... ((unless I just believe I am an organism!!??)).

I just find the idea that the CHRISTIAN intelligent design would be "correct" absolutely shocking, as that would go against pretty much everything we have learnt since having sharp minds away from an iron age desert tribe believing society thingy...*

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge


haven't been on a awhile just saw this thread. I will be doing a thread on creation vs evolution next, I have been very busy and it will be awhile. As far as your post I will say, their is a reason evolutionist dont debate, and only those willing and wanting believe them and dont challenge what they say and come away with a post and belief similar to op. For anyone willing to question and challenge what they believe, please read this book

The greatest hoax on earth Refuting dawkins on evolution
http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php

It is a response to his whole book but this argument is in his book and is responded in detail and really shows why it is these "bad design" arguments [ and others used to teach evolution] dont work in debate and why just like dawkins, he refused to debate sarfati in recorded public debate on his book. When I do post i will post dozens of debates when evolutionist do debate, than you will see more reasons why they only work on those willing and wanting to believe.

[Montmorency]

Who starts off their post by pasting their signature?

[Greyblades]

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

Oh good, this guy again.

[Sarmatian]

total relism is back!!! Yay!!!

No one gets the backroom going like he does! Welcome back!