Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Rob Osborn]

You really are a Thomas, unbeliever. You accept nothing you cannot observe with your own eyes. Of course, I have no idea what your eyes have experienced but you display a ready willingness to discount any and everything espoused in the name of science.

I learned long ago to trust in the information of others, as long as that information didn't stretch credulity. I missed the birth of my oldest daughter ( my boss, the stinker, wouldn't give me time off).. When I got to the maternity ward, my wife was sitting up in bed, holding a baby girl (that she claimed was my new daughter). I didn't see the birth with my two very own eyes. My wife had displayed signs for close to nine months that simulated pregnancy. She said she spent time with the doctor for pre-natal checks. But without ordering a DNA test I had no way of knowing that this baby was mine ...or even if my wife was indeed, the mother..

But guess what? I just got out my camera, blubbered like an idiot with tears of joy and shot two rolls of basically the same picture, over and over, to proudly display to relatives or complete strangers who couldn't escape my grasp.

Had Behe been in that same delivery ward, he might have come with an alternate theory as to whose child my wife held in her hands, but I went with the majority opinion.

The issue though is that all evolutionists have is conjecture. There is no conclusive evidence that man evolved froma lower species of animal. There is also no real explanation given why humans are so much more intelligent than animals in evolutionary terms. All there is is this great mound of conjecture that when stacked up doesn't amount to anyreal tangible evidence of human evolution.

[Brian 2.0]

The issue though is that all evolutionists have is conjecture. There is no conclusive evidence that man evolved froma lower species of animal. There is also no real explanation given why humans are so much more intelligent than animals in evolutionary terms. All there is is this great mound of conjecture that when stacked up doesn't amount to anyreal tangible evidence of human evolution.

Careful how heavily you trash the evolutionary position, because however weak you think the evidence is for evolution... your theory for how men came to be has even less evidence behind it.

[thesometimesaint]

The issue though is that all evolutionists have is conjecture. There is no conclusive evidence that man evolved froma lower species of animal. There is also no real explanation given why humans are so much more intelligent than animals in evolutionary terms. All there is is this great mound of conjecture that when stacked up doesn't amount to anyreal tangible evidence of human evolution.

 

Incorrect. There is plenty of evidence. You just won't accept it.

[Helen47]

Biologos.com is a christian site where theistic  scientists argue for a very old earth and that man has a common ancestor with the apes.

[Rob Osborn]

Incorrect. There is plenty of evidence. You just won't accept it.

whats to accept? That humans look similar to chimps? Well of course. Why are we so different then?

[thesometimesaint]

Biologos.com is a christian site where theistic  scientists argue for a very old earth and that man has a common ancestor with the apes.

 

About 40% of all US scientists are Theists.

[thesometimesaint]

whats to accept? That humans look similar to chimps? Well of course. Why are we so different then?

 

That is not the question. In science the question is why are we so similar? We are between 98-99% genetically identical to the chimps.

[Rob Osborn]

That is not the question. In science the question is why are we so similar? We are between 98-99% genetically identical to the chimps.

Its not that high. Anyways, even if we are so similar how come we are so different? Especially, why is our abilities, natures and intelligence so completely different?

[Rob Osborn]

We place rovers on Mars, what did Chimps ever achieve? How to find and peel a banana?

[The Nehor]

We place rovers on Mars, what did Chimps ever achieve? How to find and peel a banana?

 

We claim to be the children of God and there is a much greater difference between putting a rover on Mars and forming the cosmos compared to the petty difference between banana peeling (which we still do) and sending a small probe somewhere in our own backyard.

 

By your logic clearly God and man are unrelated.

[Rob Osborn]

We claim to be the children of God and there is a much greater difference between putting a rover on Mars and forming the cosmos compared to the petty difference between banana peeling (which we still do) and sending a small probe somewhere in our own backyard.

 

By your logic clearly God and man are unrelated.

What ever does your science say about God and forming the cosmos? Isn't God supposed to be a mythical being in your science? I am asking your science why human intelligence is leagues above the animal kingdom's intelligence? Why is that?

[Brian 2.0]

Its not that high. Anyways, even if we are so similar how come we are so different? Especially, why is our abilities, natures and intelligence so completely different?

99% is "not that high" of a percentage?

Your standards for what is evidence never ceases to amaze me on this thread.

Or are you saying that we in fact are NOT 98-99% genetically similar?

Edited March 10, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Rob Osborn]

99% is "not that high" of a percentage?

Your standards for what is evidence never ceases to amaze me on this thread.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome

More like 70% my friend

[Brian 2.0]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome

More like 70% my friend

Ha. I had just edited my post because I realiEd what you were possibly getting at.

[The Nehor]

What ever does your science say about God and forming the cosmos?

 

Nothing. I turn to the scriptures and my prayers for that.

 

 

Isn't God supposed to be a mythical being in your science?

 

No. He is just left out of the equation. Mythology is a mix of philosophy, religion, and history. Not really a science.

 

I am asking your science why human intelligence is leagues above the animal kingdom's intelligence? Why is that?

 

The explanation is that intelligence is a survival trait and is passed on via natural selection. At least it was in the short term (in the cosmic scheme of things). It looks like intelligence might just be a temporary advantage until you wipe yourself out.

 

Look, you are trying to turn science into some kind of idolatry. I won't deny that in some cases it is. Not in my case. Sorry.

[Rob Osborn]

Nothing. I turn to the scriptures and my prayers for that.

 

 

 

No. He is just left out of the equation. Mythology is a mix of philosophy, religion, and history. Not really a science.

 

 

The explanation is that intelligence is a survival trait and is passed on via natural selection. At least it was in the short term (in the cosmic scheme of things). It looks like intelligence might just be a temporary advantage until you wipe yourself out.

 

Look, you are trying to turn science into some kind of idolatry. I won't deny that in some cases it is. Not in my case. Sorry.

So why are we so vastly more intelligent than are supposed closest cousins the chimps?

[The Nehor]

So why are we so vastly more intelligent than are supposed closest cousins the chimps?

 

Because they are distant cousins.

 

Like you and me. One of us is vastly more intelligent. Explain why that is if we only go back 6,000 years.

[Rob Osborn]

Because they are distant cousins.

 

Like you and me. One of us is vastly more intelligent. Explain why that is if we only go back 6,000 years.

All humans are generally about the same level of intelligence. Even if one averages it out, the basic human is capable of a far greater level of intelligence than any of the animlas. It stands to reason that if chimps are supposed to be so closely related, they should be close to on par with our intelligence. Problem is however- they really aren't that much different than a dog or pig intelligence wise.

[The Nehor]

All humans are generally about the same level of intelligence. Even if one averages it out, the basic human is capable of a far greater level of intelligence than any of the animlas. It stands to reason that if chimps are supposed to be so closely related, they should be close to on par with our intelligence. Problem is however- they really aren't that much different than a dog or pig intelligence wise.

 

Again, you are getting the facts wrong. We are not closely related. They are one of our closest SURVIVING relatives. Genetic studies seem to show that our surviving ancestor of both is probably 6 million years ago but I have read some suggest it may be as far back as 25 million years ago.

 

And no, humans are not generally at the same level of intelligence. For evidence I submit YouTube comments and Fox News.

[Rob Osborn]

Again, you are getting the facts wrong. We are not closely related. They are one of our closest SURVIVING relatives. Genetic studies seem to show that our surviving ancestor of both is probably 6 million years ago but I have read some suggest it may be as far back as 25 million years ago.

 

And no, humans are not generally at the same level of intelligence. For evidence I submit YouTube comments and Fox News.

Hum...so, you have a 16,000,000 year dispute heh? So much for factual evidence with science.

So, them being our closest SURVIVING relatives, why are they no smarter than say dolphins?

[The Nehor]

Hum...so, you have a 16,000,000 year dispute heh? So much for factual evidence with science.

 

Earlier in this thread you said you were acquainted with science. Then you say this. You lied.

 

You really imagine that the practice of science is about certainties and that somehow within the last year we have ironed everything out and understand everything? No. We will hopefully learn more as we go along.

 

 

So, them being our closest SURVIVING relatives, why are they no smarter than say dolphins?

 

Because intelligence is has an advantage in survival so we can expect to see it manifest in more then one evolutionary path. Of course dolphins and humans are believed to have a common ancestor about 60 million years ago so the distance is not that great.

 

You are also arguing the wrong way around. We don't argue that chimps are close to humanity due to higher intelligence levels. We argue it based on DNA similarity. You might as well ask why dolphins at all? Surely the ocean doesn't NEED mammals. They are there. We have to deal with the evidence we have.

[Rob Osborn]

Earlier in this thread you said you were acquainted with science. Then you say this. You lied.

 

You really imagine that the practice of science is about certainties and that somehow within the last year we have ironed everything out and understand everything? No. We will hopefully learn more as we go along.

 

 

 

Because intelligence is has an advantage in survival so we can expect to see it manifest in more then one evolutionary path. Of course dolphins and humans are believed to have a common ancestor about 60 million years ago so the distance is not that great.

 

You are also arguing the wrong way around. We don't argue that chimps are close to humanity due to higher intelligence levels. We argue it based on DNA similarity. You might as well ask why dolphins at all? Surely the ocean doesn't NEED mammals. They are there. We have to deal with the evidence we have.

The only evidence we do have is that there are lots of different animals that basically do not change from one species to another. So, if we deal with the evidence as facts, there is no proof for the vast evolutionary changes proposed. All this conjecture about what they suppose "must have" happened only its short of any evidence of it really happening.

[The Nehor]

The only evidence we do have is that there are lots of different animals that basically do not change from one species to another. So, if we deal with the evidence as facts, there is no proof for the vast evolutionary changes proposed. All this conjecture about what they suppose "must have" happened only its short of any evidence of it really happening.

 

Your standard for proof is not what science or history uses. Sadly you are not equipped to define that standard and furthermore despite it being explained to you here several times you seem incapable of understanding it.

[Rob Osborn]

Your standard for proof is not what science or history uses. Sadly you are not equipped to define that standard and furthermore despite it being explained to you here several times you seem incapable of understanding it.

I am fully capable of understanding where the chips lay. Evolutionary theory posits that because there are similarities in how we look with some species of animals that therefore we must have come from them. Problem is however that there really is no conclusive evidence showing this. Its interesting that the fossil record in fact shows that species do not really change- what they call "stasis".

[The Nehor]

I am fully capable of understanding where the chips lay. Evolutionary theory posits that because there are similarities in how we look with some species of animals that therefore we must have come from them.

 

No, you don't get it! Stop saying you do and then spouting drivel. You're humiliating yourself.

 

It is not the similarity in appearance. It is the similarity in genetics in which we can see bits and pieces of the progression over time. It has little or nothing to do with us both being bipeds.

 

Problem is however that there really is no conclusive evidence showing this. Its interesting that the fossil record in fact shows that species do not really change- what they call "stasis".

 

And the problem with that is that your interpretation of the fossil record comes from discredited quacks. Don't bring up Behe. He would not agree with you about the fossil record in any case.