Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Creation vs. Evolution? First there was Creation and then Evolution. It is like the scientists say with regards to the universe: First there was the big bang then expansion took care of the growth. As man is concerned, first there was only a couple, then the command was given to grow and multiply. (Gen. 1:28)

"Creation" implies design and something which is actually an unrequired and un-evidenced embellishment to the ToE process at least.
Species evolve not individuals, the human species evolved from previous species, there never were only two humans.

 

[Jacob]

But actually there are many people from history who are ancestors to all humans alive today.

So, which of all those people alive at the time do you pick to be Adam, and which to be Eve?

Stuart

If you go back in the genealogy you cannot go back further than Adam and Eve, who were not born.

 

[Jacob]

Do you think I am stupid?

Because the way you used it is the way many people try to use it, when they want other people to reject the current findings of science and to adopt their views. In fact the words you posted with it are what made me see that. Your logic is faulty, your knowledge is horrendous, and I think you ought to refrain from using poor logic when it is clear you are. Yet, even after all this you will not admit to what you are doing. You will simply slink away mumbling "But I am just trying to point people towards scripture."

How do you think I should know what I don't know?

 

[gcthomas]

If you go back in the genealogy you cannot go back further than Adam and Eve, who were not born.

I agree. And even Adam and Eve are mythical.

As they say not far from here: "you wouldn't Adam and Eve it".

 

[Jacob]

You fail miserably in lots of ways. The problem is you are not willing to change that.

Can you tell me what kind of things that you know that are not based on empirical evidence?

You do realize that even the Bible (in its written form and not any specific interpretation of that text) is something we can empirically verify, right?

Which things, that you think we cannot empirically verify, do you think we should accept anyway?

What objective criteria do you use to determine that?

The fact that you use the words "but I do not believe macro-evolution" demonstrates to me that any further discussion with you would be a waste of time and effort. Keep moving on, please. Your subjective acceptance or rejection of any empirical evidence does not change the objective reality of that evidence. You might chose to not accept such evidence, but you cannot simply hide the evidence by claiming "I do not believe". You are a fool if you think that is somehow effective.

Can you know that all knowledge is empirical? I don't believe you can know that by empiricism alone. Is the sentence "all knowledge is empirically testable" empirically testable?

 

[Jacob]

I agree. And even Adam and Eve are mythical.

As they say not far from here: "you wouldn't Adam and Eve it".

I don't know what you mean.

 

[gcthomas]

I don't know what you mean.

Mythical : traditional fictional tale told to pass on some lesson or other.

 

[Jacob]

Mythical : traditional fictional tale told to pass on some lesson or other.

Some people believe the myth of Jesus is actually the only true myth. So that would stretch the definition here, it that it would not be fictional. But neither do I understand the rest of that post.

 

[alwight]

Some people believe the myth of Jesus is actually the only true myth. So that would stretch the definition here, it that it would not be fictional. But neither do I understand the rest of that post.

It was "Cockney Rhyming Slang" for "believe".


"Can you Adam and Eve it?"

 

[Jacob]

It was "Cockney Rhyming Slang" for "believe".


"Can you Adam and Eve it?"

Interesting.

 

[gcthomas]

Interesting.

Most of the English language can be translated into American somewhere on the intertubes.

:up:

 

[noguru]

Can you know that all knowledge is empirical? I don't believe you can know that by empiricism alone. Is the sentence "all knowledge is empirically testable" empirically testable?

That's like saying you can't make letters from letters. You have to start somewhere. Where do you propose we start?

You never answered my other questions either. You are getting increasingly slippery as we try to evaluate your epistemology. Do you know what that usually signifies?

 

[noguru]

How do you think I should know what I don't know?

Learn it, if the information is there. If the information does not exist then you can pretty much make any claim.

If I ask you to research k strategists and r strategists, you may not know what they are until after you have researched it. But you can research what has been discovered on the subject rather than trotting out your empty bluster.

 

[Stuu]

If you go back in the genealogy you cannot go back further than Adam and Eve, who were not born.

If you took a child born 30,000 years ago and raised it in a modern family, basically you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a modern kid.

If you went back 70,000 years ago you might find it difficult to find a kid to borrow because the human population dropped to its likely lowest value of about 1000.

Go back 185,000 years ago. Now you can have a discussion about whether you are dealing with modern humans or an ancestor species. Evolutionary change is slow and species boundaries are not crisply defined; arguments can be made for the appearance of modern humans tens of thousands of years either way depending on your criteria.

We are the products of continuous successful reproduction of a line of descent that stretches back to single-celled organisms, some time over 500 million years ago.

So, there is some of the timeline laid out. I've left out some details! Of course I didn't do the massive body of careful, painstaking work that has established these as facts of natural history, but I certainly respect it as reliable knowledge with the usual scientific requirement that it remains open to alteration as new evidence comes to light. Almost always, new evidence makes subtle adjustments to improve accuracy or add detail. No one has yet discovered evidence that brings the whole timeline into question.


So, your turn. This claim of yours that there is a human genealogy that stops with two humans who weren't born.

1. By what biological mechanism are humans made? (I note the bible lists at least 4 different ones).
2. At what period in the past, to the same sort of accuracy I have given in my claimed timeline, did this sudden emergence of two humans happen? (±20% should be enough error for either of us).
3. Why does the fossil record clearly disagree that there ever was a time of only two humans?

Bonus question:
4. Did this created pair carry with them all the human-specific parasites, to be passed on to their descendents? If not, by what mechanism have humans come to have human-specific parasites?


I think if you can't answer these questions convincingly then there is no reason to pay much attention to your claim, or to any similar claim by creationists anywhere.

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

That's like saying you can't make letters from letters. You have to start somewhere. Where do you propose we start?

You never answered my other questions either. You are getting increasingly slippery as we try to evaluate your epistemology. Do you know what that usually signifies?

I am evaluating whether or not you believe empiricism is the only way of knowing anything.

 

[Jacob]

Learn it, if the information is there. If the information does not exist then you can pretty much make any claim.

If I ask you to research k strategists and r strategists, you may not know what they are until after you have researched it. But you can research what has been discovered on the subject rather than trotting out your empty bluster.

All I know right now is that you want to take me to pieces.

 

[Jacob]

If you took a child born 30,000 years ago and raised it in a modern family, basically you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a modern kid.

If you went back 70,000 years ago you might find it difficult to find a kid to borrow because the human population dropped to its likely lowest value of about 1000.

Go back 185,000 years ago. Now you can have a discussion about whether you are dealing with modern humans or an ancestor species. Evolutionary change is slow and species boundaries are not crisply defined; arguments can be made for the appearance of modern humans tens of thousands of years either way depending on your criteria.

We are the products of continuous successful reproduction of a line of descent that stretches back to single-celled organisms, some time over 500 million years ago.

So, there is some of the timeline laid out. I've left out some details! Of course I didn't do the massive body of careful, painstaking work that has established these as facts of natural history, but I certainly respect it as reliable knowledge with the usual scientific requirement that it remains open to alteration as new evidence comes to light. Almost always, new evidence makes subtle adjustments to improve accuracy or add detail. No one has yet discovered evidence that brings the whole timeline into question.


So, your turn. This claim of yours that there is a human genealogy that stops with two humans who weren't born.

1. By what biological mechanism are humans made? (I note the bible lists at least 4 different ones).
2. At what period in the past, to the same sort of accuracy I have given in my claimed timeline, did this sudden emergence of two humans happen? (±20% should be enough error for either of us).
3. Why does the fossil record clearly disagree that there ever was a time of only two humans?

Bonus question:
4. Did this created pair carry with them all the human-specific parasites, to be passed on to their descendents? If not, by what mechanism have humans come to have human-specific parasites?


I think if you can't answer these questions convincingly then there is no reason to pay much attention to your claim, or to any similar claim by creationists anywhere.

Stuart

My claim is based on reading scripture. You may also benefit from Ussher's Annals of the World.

Some people say Young Earth Creationists believe the world is only 10,000-20,000 years old. I believe 6,000 to 10,000 would be more accurate for what they believe. I believe only about 6,000 years ago. That is what I believe the generations spoken of in the Bible and chronologies derived from the Bible (and human history) show.

 

[6days]

My claim is based on reading scripture. You may also benefit from Ussher's Annals of the World.

Some people say Young Earth Creationists believe the world is only 10,000-20,000 years old. I believe 6,000 to 10,000 would be more accurate for what they believe. I believe only about 6,000 years ago. That is what I believe the generations spoken of in the Bible and chronologies derived from the Bible (and human history) show.

Very good!

 

[noguru]

All I know right now is that you want to take me to pieces.

It is what it is. You do not seem to be offering a compelling argument for anything you are posting. What is it exactly that you are claiming? Your ideas are as clear as a brook right after a sudden intense summer rain. That part is transparent.

 

[Stuu]

My claim is based on reading scripture. You may also benefit from Ussher's Annals of the World.

Some people say Young Earth Creationists believe the world is only 10,000-20,000 years old. I believe 6,000 to 10,000 would be more accurate for what they believe. I believe only about 6,000 years ago. That is what I believe the generations spoken of in the Bible and chronologies derived from the Bible (and human history) show.

That doesn't answer any of my questions. I don't think they were unreasonable. I think you don't know anything about the origins of our species, or indeed anything about the history of our planet.

I hope no one takes you seriously.

Stuart