Early One Friday Morning

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Early One Friday Morning

Post #1

Post by SallyF »

In 1642, Dr. John Lightfoot wrote that man was created at 9:00 a.m., and in 1644, he wrote that the world was created on Sunday, September 12, 3928. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/white_ad.html

(The mythological, biblical) Jehovah god formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis Chapter 2)

Now, the length of a biblical "day" can be whatever one chooses it to be, and one can apply that to the rest of the biblical creation mythology, but not to the creation of the mud-man. If one is a biblical scholar, one is obliged to add up the biblical "begats" to arrive at somewhere near the 3,928 years before the Son of Jehovah arrived on this planet in some sort of mysterious transference of divine DNA to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

On the evidence-based, scientific side of things, however:

The skull, detailed in the first of two papers in Nature, is set to rewrite our understanding of where A. anamensis fits between primitive hominins that lived more than 4 million years ago, and Australopithecus afarensis, the species made famous by the Lucy skeleton. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... p/11444130

Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’
https://religionnews.com/2014/10/27/pop ... -creation/

Would His Holiness need to toss his Bible in the trash can to make that claim …?
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #41

Post by Diagoras »

EarthScienceguy wrote:The author of that article went through and refuted radiometric dating. His research basically said that the process used to produce these radiometric dates is useless as a dating method. So I seriously do not understand his comment.
(To avoid a long, nested quote, the above article was written by a creationist who concluded by acknowledging that Creationists still needed to find evidence for a ‘young earth’.)

<Bolding mine>

It seems fairly straightforward. He’s stating that he doesn’t have any evidence for a ‘young earth’, and comments that it would probably be a good idea for Creationists to come up with some, rather than to just concentrate on attacking evolutionary and paleontological science. I’m in agreement with him on that point.
Christianity has not changed its belief system to accommodate scientific thought.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #42

Post by Diagoras »

Reviewing this discussion, I was uncertain about how the present back and forth came about, when the title of the thread has nothing to do with radioactive dating. I see what happened though. It was only when DrNoGods posted in reply 18, here:
A YEC must try to discredit radiometric dating (to pick just one example) as based on some paradigm or a priori assumption, because it proves that the Earth is many orders of magnitude older than biblical chronology suggests.
that EarthScienceguy leapt into this discussion about whether Jehovah created a complete human male from mud or not.

That was in response to Still small, who hasn’t replied after the topic was derailed. Neither has the thread’s originator, Sally F. It does seem a shame that, despite an earlier plea to return to the topic, we’ve stayed on the ‘radiometric dating’ tangent. That’s possibly deterred others who had an interest in the ‘created man’ subject.

Just an observation. People can obviously decide for themselves whether such abrupt changes of topic are evidence of skilled debate or not.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #43

Post by Still small »

Diagoras wrote: Reviewing this discussion, I was uncertain about how the present back and forth came about, when the title of the thread has nothing to do with radioactive dating. I see what happened though. It was only when DrNoGods posted in reply 18, here: . . . . .

That was in response to Still small, who hasn’t replied after the topic was derailed.. . . . .

Just an observation. People can obviously decide for themselves whether such abrupt changes of topic are evidence of skilled debate or not.
Sorry, I should have replied, therefore :-
__________________________
DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 17 by Still small]
I think you need to get up with the times. There are a few members of the ‘genus Homo’ within the same holobaramin as that which you call ‘anatomically modern humans’.


The "times" I'm referring to are those described in the bible, not what we currently know of the evolution of genus Homo and how we classify the various members. Where, in the bible, is there any allowance for any member of the genus Homo that is not a completely modern Homo sapien sapien? I don't think there are any sections within the biblical text that describe any such creatures, which is not surprising as the writers had no knowledge that such creatures could exist.
Actually, the Bible makes no reference to ‘man’ with the term Homo sapien sapien, modern or otherwise, as this is a recent man-made classification. In reference to man (whether Homo sapien sapien or not), the Bible classifies them, as with all creatures, according to Genesis 1:24  “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.� (Emphasis added)
The criteria is their ability to multiply (reproduce, not do math). If two creatures are able to multiply, they must be of the same baramin, ’created kind’. As there is genetic evidence that ‘modern man’ (Homo sapien sapien) interbred with both Denisovans and Neanderthals, they must be of the same baramin, ’created kind’ and, thus, descendants of Adam & Eve. Therefore, when the author/s of the Bible refer to ‘man’, He/they are referring to more than just Homo sapien sapien.

That is “100% certainty� based, ultimately, only upon assumptions and extrapolation.

What actual observations were made regarding the Earth 4.5 billion years ago? Or the universe 14 billion years ago? Who made these observations? Are they actual observations (as per the scientific method) or is it merely interpretation of the ‘evidence’ based upon assumptions according to a particular paradigm?


This is a common response from creationists, so I can respond with a common analogy. Crime scene investigators don't have to have been present during commission of the crime to analyze the scene and associated evidence to arrive at an understanding of what happened. By your line of reasoning, anything that happened without a human present to witness it would be pure speculation. We could never understand anything that happened before humans came onto the scene to physically observe it a few hundred thousands of years ago (or a few million, depending on what you accept as the first "human").
Hopefully, you are not basing your opinion regarding the reliability of CSI on the various TV shows as they give a somewhat misleading view of its effectiveness, purely for entertainment purposes. They give us the impression that CSI is ‘all about the facts’ and that ‘the facts speak for themselves’. This is a blatantly false picture of how forensic science actually works. The facts can’t speak at all, let alone for themselves. Rather, people interpret the facts according to their assumptions about the past. If you don’t believe me, just ask Lindy Chamberlain who was convicted on a circumstantial case based on forensic evidence. This, despite it contradicting eye-witness evidence.
A YEC must try to discredit radiometric dating (to pick just one example) as based on some paradigm or a priori assumption, . . . . . .
.

This has been dealt with by other members.

Have a good day!
Still small

Post Reply