Creationists stumped by new hominid fossils

[Greg Jennings]

Keep in mind what I actually said "there is a long history of evolutionists trying to make ape fossils appear more human like; and make human fossils appear more ape like."

You are getting closer Greg!
But try not reshape what I said by using different terms. Can you also admit they tried to make a little 13# ape lke / monkey like creature more human like by putting it into human lineage.
Now... can you admit that evolutionists tried to make Neandertals ape like by a museum displays showing him with a hairy fur like coat?*

There was no evidence they were hairy like a gorilla.... Correct? Yet in museum displays they were shown as stooped over hairy beasts. The portrayal was based on the evolutionary belief system - not science.


Some evolutionists still try deny the humanity of Neandertals. Science has proven evolutionists wrong.*

As to sources Greg.... a wee bit of research would help you. Try Google, or even use Wikipedia to show you that even evolutionists now reject many of the earlier claims that tried to make monkeys, apes and lemurs appear more human like.

Anyways.... its sort of fun to keep showing how evolutionists make bold claims making men out of monkeys..then later backtracking.
EX. RAMAPITHECUS BREVIROSTIS*
Evolutionist claim
"We now come to the interesting bit, the beginning of our own ancestral line. It starts with a creature called Ramapitecus. .... This missing link probably around 25 million years old, would be the youngest common ancestor of man..."

From the book "The Monkey Puzzle" p-74 by John Griffen and Jeremiah Cher fast *(both evolutionists )
BTW...This particular *'fossil' consisted *of a single jaw, yet there are drawings of a complete creature. That isn't science...its blind faith and story telling / monkey business.

Reality check
By Leaky and Lewin P-27 in their book 'Origins'.
" now if we are absolutely honest, we have to admit that we know nothing about, Ramapithecus, we don't know what it look like; we don't know what it did; and naturally we don't know how it did it! But with the aid of jaw and tooth fragments and one or two bits and pieces from arms and legs, all of which represents a couple of dozen individuals, we can make some guesses, more or less inspired."

I'm not sure if you think that is humorous? Or do you think that is real science?

If you wish we can keep talking how evolutionists like to make men into monkeys...and as with Ramapithecus, they like to make monkeys into men.*

Oh 6, you've demonstrated to all here on this thread exactly what you're about. And mostly that's getting cornered, then frantically dodging and throwing out "strawman" at every turn while whining about being misrepresented when you're clearly not. Amazingly, you're still dodging my question and now trying to steer us away towards neanderthals because you know just how screwed you are

It's been a long day for you, buddy. Sorry it had to be like this. I hate doing that to a friend

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope.... that is evolutionary storytelling. Can you compare the bone structure of a bulldog and a chihuahua and say that one is a new species?

Can you find me any ape species that have the same extraordinary genetic variability abilities as Canis lupus familiaris does?


Not likely, as dogs are the standard in that department. Ape/human/hominid species don't have anything near that kind of genetic elasticity that will result in huge phenotypic changes? Follow?

 

[Dialogos]

Not sure if the dating has been performed as of yet.

So why do all the headlines read something akin to..

"This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.

And yet we haven't dated these fossils so we don't know if they are even relevant to the "human story" evolutionarily speaking that is.

Perhaps the final conclusion will be that this is just another evolutionary "dead end" and that these hominids are in fact, not descendants of modern humans.

 

[Greg Jennings]

So why do all the headlines read something akin to..


And yet we haven't dated these fossils so we don't know if they are even relevant to the "human story" evolutionarily speaking that is.

Perhaps the final conclusion will be that this is just another evolutionary "dead end" and that these hominids are in fact, not descendants of modern humans.

When I posted that I was unaware of the dating developments.

I can assure that this hominid is no descendant of modern humans, as that would mean modern humans gave rise to it. However it's quite possible that this creature is not part of our evolutionary tree, and just a relative that developed independently. Further studies will have to be performed in order to say for sure.

For answers to your questions on radiometric dating on this sample, read the article in full about the difficulty of dating. It explains it pretty well

 

[Dialogos]

However it's quite possible that this creature is not part of our evolutionary tree, and just a relative that developed independently. Further studies will have to be performed in order to say for sure.

So it sounds like the jury is still out, even for the evolutionists.

Got it.

Thought so.

For answers to your questions on radiometric dating on this sample, read the article in full about the difficulty of dating. It explains it pretty well

I'm sure it is very difficult, but excuses aren't very good substitutes for evidence.

 

[6days]

Can you find me any ape species that have the same extraordinary genetic variability abilities as Canis lupus familiaris does?

Not likely, as dogs are the standard in that department. Ape/human/hominid species don't have anything near that kind of genetic elasticity that will result in huge phenotypic changes? Follow?

Moving the goalposts post fallacy...
Reminder of what you had claimed..."from bone structure it's clear it's a new species"
Truth is the word species is an rubbery word and bone structure is only one factor used in classifications. ( and not the main one)

 

[6days]

Amazingly, you're still dodging my question

I'm avoiding your strawmen.

I keep showing what I actually said... not the dishonest attempts you have made to reframe it.


Keep in mind what I actually said "there is a long history of evolutionists trying to make ape fossils appear more human like; and make human fossils appear more ape like."

and now trying to steer us away towards neanderthals

They are a good example of what my claim was. You didn't answer my question so here it is once again.
Now... can you admit that evolutionists tried to make Neandertals ape like by a museum displays showing him with a hairy fur like coat?

Re. evolutionists trying to make a man out of a monkey I have already shown how Leakey and Lewin admit to inspired guessing. *

Another paleoanthropologist Robert Eckhart published an article in Scientific American where he admits " amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominids, is there one whose morphology mark it as man's hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered the answer appears to be no". Many evolutionists still considered Ramapithecus to be a homonid based on jaw fragments and a few teeth. Eckhart did a series of 24 different measurements on a collection of fossil teeth from Dryopitithecus (admitted ape) and Ramapithecus (alleged hominid) and found the measurements similar to that of chimpanzees. Interestingly the variation between living chimps was greater than that of the two fossil jaws being examined; and yet one is believed to be ape and one believed to be hominid. It's clear evidence of evolutionists trying to make an ape more human like by calling it hominid when there is no scientific evidence at all.*

Dr. Eckhart concluded that Ramapithecus seems to be an ape - morphologically ecologically and behaviorally. He said " neither is there compelling evidence for the existence of any distinct hominid species during this interval (Dryopitithecus to Kenyapithecus) unless the designation of hominid mean simply any individual if that happens to have small teeth and a corresponding small face.

Evolutions tried to make these apes and monkeys into ape-men but science proves them wrong.

 

[iouae]

Right, OK then

Honestly, nothing I'm about to say is meant to demean you cause you seem like a nice person and I wouldn't want to do that.

There is a reality going on apart from all this religious stuff you have been brought up to believe. But the question is, what is it? No matter what you have been taught, beliefs do not represent truth and reality, they represent only beliefs, which are many and varied. You can check that out for yourself and see. Christianity is just one of many belief systems, which cannot all be true but which can, by definition of faith, all be false.

I don't know about you but for me truth is extremely important, and I know "truth" is a difficult thing to define but are you truly open to it?

If you are really interested in what is true start by eliminating what is obviously false. Take a critical examination of the origins of Christianity. Put aside for a moment all the magical stuff that as never been proven and use your critical thinking .

If Christianity is true then what could possibly be the harm?

I don't know what you are asking me to do.

Why can it not all be true which is written in the Bible?
So far I have not found anything in my faith which jars with my reality.
Even the demons who possess people and turn them nuts, I have seen that, and even that is true. The demons are demented and troubled because they were cut off from God. Even they are a good reality check and wake up call for me.

The origins of Christianity do you mean through the church and folks such as Constantine? There I will agree that it became an utter mess right from the start as the pure message of Christ began to be used to control people. But we are liberated from the church's controlling power now.

I believe the Bible is inspired.
But more than that, once you have had prayers answered and experienced the give-take relationship with God, there is no going back. When you pray it is like a two way conversation. You ask Him something and instantly the answer comes to mind. And answers which you know don't come from you.

And when you need help, He answers too. Why would anyone want to give that up?

You may think that God crimps your lifestyle. He does not. He only wants you to give up things that hurt you. So there is no drawback to a Christian lifestyle. Such as holding grudges and perpetuating feuds. Christ teaches us to "Let it go".

 

[Hedshaker]

Yes, and no. God existed, so there was existence.

I'm aware of what you believe cause I picked up the clues, but faith beliefs do not become objectively true simply by claiming so, or else others with mutually exclusive belief claims must also be true, and that's illogical.

Oh, huh, why didn't you just say so sooner. lol

Lol, sorry about that. Was it the "Other" label that mislead you? I'm not terribly comfortable with the "atheist" label since it assumes theism to be the default position and then prefixes an "A" to those who do not subscribe. If anything I prefer "sceptic" since it paints with a broader brush, but that label isn't an option.

Hedshaker Because it leaves more questions than answers. Where did God come from?

It doesn't in relation to the original question of when did God begin, or who made God, or whatever. God is eternal answers those questions. It might make you think of more questions but life is like that sometimes. It makes things interesting. Where did God come from? I don't know. We aren't told anything about that.

Do you always go by what you are told? The "God is eternal" claim simply moves the whole conundrum back a step. It adds a non-falsifiable assertion, which screams confirmation bias and, at the very least, merits further questioning and a little honest scepticism. To claim everything must have a beginning "except" God is not so much an answer but more of a fudge.

HedshakerGod is eternal means nothing. It's just an apologetic. I start with what we have and add nothing and when I don't know I admit it, and so should you.

"God is eternal" has meaning. It means He is eternal. The word eternal has a meaning and applying it to God as a descriptor means something. So now you can no longer say "I don't know anything about any god" because I have conveyed one piece of information to you about a god. God is eternal.

Er, no, you have made a non-falsifiable, supernatural claim, that presumably only applies to the God you believe in. You are, of course, entitled to believe what ever you like, it's your mind and that is not what I object to. I take issue only with the notion that the assertions you make represent objective truth. It would be lovely indeed if reality would bend to accommodate every ones cherished beliefs, but sadly that cannot be the case.

Hedshaker Cherished beliefs should never be confused with actual knowledge

That's for sure. But they aren't mutually exclusive.

Exactly! Therefore they cannot all be true. They can, however, all be false, which is further evidence that non-falsifiable, cherished beliefs that require faith for there very existence should be, at a minimum, viewed with honest, open-minded scepticism

Hedshaker I suspect existence itself may be eternal*, ever changing, beyond its own control and way, way beyond our understanding. Nor do I reject the notion that there is more than one universe. Why not?

I don't know why not. I suspect the same things. I also don't reject the notion that there is more than one universe. I don't embrace it either.

Neither do I embrace it. It's a hypothesis that is hitherto non-falsifiable. But I do not reject it outright because it does not suggest any form of supernatural magic to be a possibilty. It could have merit, or maybe not. Don't know. But I give your comments about it kudos since most fundamentalists (usually) reject it outright because it does not exactly align with the genesis myth.

EDIT: * I forgot to point this out, that right there you said existence itself may be eternal. I understood what you meant by this, it had meaning.

Thank you. I too think it has meaning. I have never been able to get my head around the notion that the universe began from "nothing". Of course, that is something that relies on human intuition, which science has shown to be less than reliable when tackling deeper questions of existence and reality from a scientific point of vew. However, there are many heavy weight scientists and cosmologists who are now looking at ideas about pre-Big Bang existence, including Roger Penrose, who only a few years ago would have dismissed the idea outright.

before the Big Bang

Interesting conversation, cheers :thumb:

 

[Hedshaker]

I believe the Bible is inspired.
But more than that, once you have had prayers answered and experienced the give-take relationship with God, there is no going back. When you pray it is like a two way conversation. You ask Him something and instantly the answer comes to mind. And answers which you know don't come from you.

And when you need help, He answers too. Why would anyone want to give that up?

You may think that God crimps your lifestyle. He does not. He only wants you to give up things that hurt you. So there is no drawback to a Christian lifestyle. Such as holding grudges and perpetuating feuds. Christ teaches us to "Let it go".

I understand. I have been around long enough to see how strong religious belief can be, and the effect it can have on the minds of some believers, none of which makes it true IMO.

I can assure you though that there is plenty of "going back". Just direct your youtube search to the likes of Dan Barker and Matt Dillahunty.

There are many more of course, but those two in Particular represent a complete turn around, and for very good, honest reasons. Both where hard line fundamentalist Christians for over 20 years and both studied at seminaries. Dan Barker is a classic example:

How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists

What they had in common was a burning desire to prove the truth of their religious beliefs. But their studies and their honesty to that end lead them to a very different truth.

Check them out. What can the harm possibly be? At the very least it will make a change from apologetics, right?

Good luck :thumb:

Why I no Longer Believe

 

[GuySmiley]

I'm aware of what you believe cause I picked up the clues, but faith beliefs do not become objectively true simply by claiming so, or else others with mutually exclusive belief claims must also be true, and that's illogical.

True.

Lol, sorry about that. Was it the "Other" label that mislead you? I'm not terribly comfortable with the "atheist" label since it assumes theism to be the default position and then prefixes an "A" to those who do not subscribe. If anything I prefer "sceptic" since it paints with a broader brush, but that label isn't an option.

Interesting.

Do you always go by what you are told? The "God is eternal" claim simply moves the whole conundrum back a step. It adds a non-falsifiable assertion, which screams confirmation bias and, at the very least, merits further questioning and a little honest scepticism. To claim everything must have a beginning "except" God is not so much an answer but more of a fudge.

Er, no, you have made a non-falsifiable, supernatural claim, that presumably only applies to the God you believe in. You are, of course, entitled to believe what ever you like, it's your mind and that is not what I object to. I take issue only with the notion that the assertions you make represent objective truth. It would be lovely indeed if reality would bend to accommodate every ones cherished beliefs, but sadly that cannot be the case.

I'm not trying to convince you that God is real, or that God is eternal. If I thought I could I would try. I'm only trying to convince you that saying God is eternal answers the question of "Who made God?" or similar questions. I started this (off topic ) conversation because I saw you and someone talking about how its a non-answer.

So above where you say its non-falsifiable, supernatural, biased, merits skepticism, all just says why you don't believe its true. That doesn't matter, its another topic.

This is why in my 2nd (I think) response I asked you to imagine an eternal thing, or think of something you do believe is eternal if there is one. If someone asks when it began, the answer can only be that it is eternal. The answer makes sense and satisfies that question.

Now the authority on Christianity, the Bible, happens to teach that God is eternal. If it taught the opposite, you'd have a powerful argument against that answer. If you want to claim that God isn't real, or that God cant be eternal, you'll have to make that case. (well, assuming you want to convince someone to believe it)

Exactly! Therefore they cannot all be true. They can, however, all be false, which is further evidence that non-falsifiable, cherished beliefs that require faith for there very existence should be, at a minimum, viewed with honest, open-minded scepticism

I agree with all of this.

Neither do I embrace it. It's a hypothesis that is hitherto non-falsifiable. But I do not reject it outright because it does not suggest any form of supernatural magic to be a possibilty. It could have merit, or maybe not. Don't know. But I give your comments about it kudos since most fundamentalists (usually) reject it outright because it does not exactly align with the genesis myth.

Thank you. I too think it has meaning. I have never been able to get my head around the notion that the universe began from "nothing". Of course, that is something that relies on human intuition, which science has shown to be less than reliable when tackling deeper questions of existence and reality from a scientific point of vew. However, there are many heavy weight scientists and cosmologists who are now looking at ideas about pre-Big Bang existence, including Roger Penrose, who only a few years ago would have dismissed the idea outright.

I've heard some ideas already, but they are non-falsifiable, scream of confirmation bias, and warrant skepticism. Ill check out that video and also your links to iouae, I like that kind of stuff. :thumb:

 

[Hedshaker]

I'm not trying to convince you that God is real, or that God is eternal. If I thought I could I would try. I'm only trying to convince you that saying God is eternal answers the question of "Who made God?" or similar questions. I started this (off topic ) conversation because I saw you and someone talking about how its a non-answer.

What I think you actually mean is it answers the question for you. I get it, you have profound beliefs to protect, so, for you guys, "God always existed" is a neat little solution but I can assure you sceptics find it contrived and uninspiring. It's the same with apologetics, Christians lap it up. Sceptics not so much, which is why some authors make good money selling apologetics books to Christians. But this argument in particular starts when theists claim they know all about the origins of the universe, it was created by their God(s). But when asked, so where did God come from? They say, oh no, the rules don't apply to God because he always existed. But this is wrong on so many levels. For a start it's a Special Pleading Logical Fallacy and secondly it's Faulty Comparsion Fallacy. And thirdly, now that theists have accepted that "something" can always exist then why not an ever changing existence, and the Big Bang merely a recent event? It's just as plausible as "goddidit" and has the added advantage that it doesn't require supernatural magic. We just don't know what may have preceded the Big Bang event is all. Don't know is an honest position when we truly don't actually know.

We all agree that the existence of the universe is factual but there seems to be a little disagreement when it comes to the many and varied Gods that people believe in, as well as the many and varied creation myths that people subscribe to. So, you see, the follow up question: so where did God come from? Is a perfectly valid response. Why should a self respecting sceptic accept the assertion "God always existed" when they do not believe that the existence of these Gods have ever been established?

So above where you say its non-falsifiable, supernatural, biased, merits skepticism, all just says why you don't believe its true. That doesn't matter, its another topic.

Ok. We seem to have been talking around in circles anyway.

This is why in my 2nd (I think) response I asked you to imagine an eternal thing, or think of something you do believe is eternal if there is one. If someone asks when it began, the answer can only be that it is eternal. The answer makes sense and satisfies that question.

I can imagine an ever changing eternal existence of some kind, it's the supernatural I have trouble with. I'm a sceptic you see. I don't believe in occultism, the paranormal, ghosts, leprechauns, fairies, angels and big foot either. It comes with the territory

Now the authority on Christianity, the Bible, happens to teach that God is eternal. If it taught the opposite, you'd have a powerful argument against that answer. If you want to claim that God isn't real, or that God cant be eternal, you'll have to make that case. (well, assuming you want to convince someone to believe it)

Now you are trying to shift the burden of proof. It is you, not I, that makes the positive claim so the burden remains squarely with you. But no, I'm not about trying to convince any one. I just attempt to present a reasonable and rational argument. People are free to deduce from that what they will and believe as they wish

Edit to add: On reflection, and having thought about it, I think I see your point. From within your world view, what you espouse is consistent. Yes!

I agree with all of this.


I've heard some ideas already, but they are non-falsifiable, scream of confirmation bias, and warrant skepticism. Ill check out that video and also your links to iouae, I like that kind of stuff. :thumb:

Good for you :thumb:

To be honest I think we've about done this to death now. Have last word if you must but I fear we will be talking in circles from here on.

Thanks for the well mannered chat and all the best.

 

[6days]

I'm no expert on human or ape skeletal anatomy, so I leave that determination up to the experts who have spent their whole lives studying this very subject.

Experts? Like Donald Johnson and Tim White (also, Richard Leakey and others) who mistakes a chimp fossil for a human ancestor...and names it Lucy? They called this chimp like fossil the "discovery of our oldest human ancestor"...and " the beginnings of mankind".*

Contrary to many evolutionists beliefs.....
LUCY WAS NO LADY.... It was just an ape / chimp.

Peter Schmidt, *paleontologist " when I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look very human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel-shaped and I just couldn't get Lucy's ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical shaped ribcage like what you see in apes"

He continues " the shoulders were high, and combined with funnel-shaped chest would have made arm swinging improbable in the human sense. It wouldn't have been able to left his thorax for the kind of deep breathing that we do when we run the abdomen was potbellied and there was no waste so that would have restricted the flexibility that's essential for human running
(From Leaky and Lewin book mentioned previous p-193,194)

* * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
In trying to make this 'monky' (ape) into a man...oops I mean woman, Johnson and White called this fragmented fossil skeleton an adult female with bipedal locomotion.*

However, analysis of 'Lucy's' pelvis by Hausler and Schmid caused them to believe'she' was a he... " it would perhaps be better to change the trivial name to "Lucifer" according to the old Roman god who brings light after the dark night because with such a pelvis Lucy would have apparently have being the last of her ape species"

* * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **

It was claimed "Ĺucy" was bipedal...could walk upright. Surely you can tell this by arms and legs?
" a chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of Lucy, the most famous fossils of Australopithecus afarensis showed her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzees, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington DC, reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles"
San Diego Union Tribune March 29th, 2000

Even Johnson later seems to acknowledge he had tried to make this chimp (Lucy) human like. *In 'Nature' Mar.31/94. He acknowledges that Lucy possessed chimp proportioned arm bones.....and that even the (alleged) descendants (A. Africanus and H.hablis) had a ape proportions.

In spite of evolutionists doing their darndest to turn apes into humans....and humans into apes...science often ends up showing the attempt was just psuedoscience... and the so called experts were really snake oil salesmen / con men.

God's Word tells us their is no such thing as ape men. He created the animals...and He created humans. There are no in-betweens.**

 

[iouae]

I'm a sceptic you see. I don't believe in occultism, the paranormal, ghosts, leprechauns, fairies, angels and big foot either. It comes with the territory

My Mom grew up in a haunted house where random things moved around - beds got thrown around, doors opened etc.

My Dad, a sceptic never seemed to quite believe her stories in this area, but he did not doubt her with other stories of her youth.

It beats me in this 21st century folks/science has not proved that paranormal activities do take place. This is crying out to be proved one way or the other. Any one who has experienced a paranormal action knows it is true.

Likewise when one has experienced being a Christian.

I listened to one very interesting video you pointed me to of one person telling his story of why he no longer believes in God. Interesting but sad. He had a few dozen reasons how the church leader was a hypocrite, racism etc. Churches are not meant to be perfect. The day one joins them, they are no longer perfect.

 

[patrick jane]

My Mom grew up in a haunted house where random things moved around - beds got thrown around, doors opened etc.

My Dad, a sceptic never seemed to quite believe her stories in this area, but he did not doubt her with other stories of her youth.

It beats me in this 21st century folks/science has not proved that paranormal activities do take place. This is crying out to be proved one way or the other. Any one who has experienced a paranormal action knows it is true.

Likewise when one has experienced being a Christian.

I listened to one very interesting video you pointed me to of one person telling his story of why he no longer believes in God. Interesting but sad. He had a few dozen reasons how the church leader was a hypocrite, racism etc. Churches are not meant to be perfect. The day one joins them, they are no longer perfect.

I wouldn't go to any place that would have me as a member

 

[iouae]

I wouldn't go to any place that would have me as a member

:crackup:

People get disillusioned because the pastor did not visit them when they were sick, nobody helped them when they needed help, somebody was not friendly to them at church etc.

Before I go to church I try to lower my expectations.
I do not expect the sermon to be all that good, but pleasantly surprise me is my attitude.

I don't expect everyone to drop what they are doing to greet me, but pleasantly surprise me.

Likewise I don't expect every word that comes out of the preachers mouth to be inspired, but hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised.

Church is only a tiny part of one's relationship with God.
If church is the major part, then one is in trouble and can be offended, and blame God.

 

[6days]

I wouldn't go to any place that would have me as a member

Hey my friend... Christ will have you as part of His body, the body of Christ. That makes all of us...warts and all as part of His body...we need you. We need to love on you Sunday as you worship Him with your terrible off key singing. And you need to love on me with my imperfections also. See ya Sunday!

 

[Hedshaker]

My Mom grew up in a haunted house where random things moved around - beds got thrown around, doors opened etc.

My Dad, a sceptic never seemed to quite believe her stories in this area, but he did not doubt her with other stories of her youth.

It beats me in this 21st century folks/science has not proved that paranormal activities do take place. This is crying out to be proved one way or the other. Any one who has experienced a paranormal action knows it is true.

Likewise when one has experienced being a Christian.

I listened to one very interesting video you pointed me to of one person telling his story of why he no longer believes in God. Interesting but sad. He had a few dozen reasons how the church leader was a hypocrite, racism etc. Churches are not meant to be perfect. The day one joins them, they are no longer perfect.

Yes of course it's true. All of the many and varied paranormal and ghostly stories are all totally true, every word....... that is. until these stories get properly investigated in a scientific manner, with an eye on genuine authenticity. Then suddenly stories crumble into dust, as most claims end up having a perfectly natural explanation, or are just plain made up. Sometimes someone is behind these so called disturbances. For some reason certain people like to dupe their peers.

It's the same with prayer. Every double blind scientific test carried out always yield results not conducive to prayers being answered.

Also there's the $1.000.000 James Randi challenge. Any one who can prove, under controlled scientific conditions (so they can't cheat) any supernatural/paranormal activity wins a million dollars. It's been manny years and no one has managed it though some have tried.


Sorry iouae, I know you really want this stuff to be real but I'm afraid it isn't. It's all just stories, just like in the bible. An unaided walk on water defies gravity and cannot be done, and someone clinically dead three days cannot come back to life, biology does not allow for it.

Of course you can ignore all the evidence and simply believe it cause you want to. That might suit you, but it wont change the facts. Sorry.

ETA: Double blind test Explanation

A double blind experiment is an experimental method used to ensure impartiality, and avoid errors arising from bias.

Cheers

 

[6days]

Of course you can ignore all the evidence and simply believe it cause you want to. That might suit you, but it wont change the facts. Sorry.

Well said! I think Iouae could say the same thing to you.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes of course it's true. All of the many and varied paranormal and ghostly stories are all totally true, every word....... that is. until these stories get properly investigated in a scientific manner, with an eye on genuine authenticity. Then suddenly stories crumble into dust, as most claims end up having a perfectly natural explanation, or are just plain made up. Sometimes someone is behind these so called disturbances. For some reason certain people like to dupe their peers.

It's the same with prayer. Every double blind scientific test carried out always yield results not conducive to prayers being answered.

Also there's the $1.000.000 James Randi challenge. Any one who can prove, under controlled scientific conditions (so they can't cheat) any supernatural/paranormal activity wins a million dollars. It's been manny years and no one has managed it though some have tried.


Sorry iouae, I know you really want this stuff to be real but I'm afraid it isn't. It's all just stories, just like in the bible. An unaided walk on water defies gravity and cannot be done, and someone clinically dead three days cannot come back to life, biology does not allow for it.

Of course you can ignore all the evidence and simply believe it cause you want to. That might suit you, but it wont change the facts. Sorry.

ETA: Double blind test Explanation



Cheers

Apparently you haven't read Lewis "Religion and Science" or are not familiar with presuppositions involved. Uniformitarianism has a certain presupposition that is mathematical. The Christian view (and some others) is aware of the mathematical, but there are things that interrupt the mathematical sequence from time to time.

In the summer of 2014, a group of orcas in Seattle's Puget Sound met and led a ferry that was moving some artefacts from a museum in downtown Seattle to the Suquamish museum across the sound where they had come from originally. The orcas leapt out of the water time after time in a display that anyone would say showed an unusual energy or excitement. The mathematical statistics about orcas in front of ferries were completely interrupted.

The mathematical is what the scientist calls 'natural.' A miracle is therefore 'un-natural' because it is 'super-natural.' The range and scope of what might happen in the supernatural realm is not down to the mathematician to know or explain, but the theologian (in the case of Biblical miracles) or the psychologist (in the case of criminal behavior) or the 'medicine-man/shaman' (in the case of a native tribe). All mathematical limitations are pretty much pointless at that point.

Scientists are amusing, therefore, about the world deluge of Genesis. I'm sure you know the 'official' final line of Wikipedia: the Genesis flood is incompatible with a modern understanding of geology. But they should have said 'with uniformitarianism,' in which each layer of earth is simply 'grown upon' by successive layers of quiet, calm organic accumulation. The evidence of the Genesis flood is, instead, 'hidden in plain sight.' That is, the evidence of massive rapid deposits of sediment from thousands of miles away is everywhere. All the data supports a very contorted, twisted, blasted surface of our mantle, and even huge contortions to the mantle such as the 15,000 meter super-fault of S. Africa which is known to have happened in a moment, not 1 inch per year.

The mathematicians will still buck at the presupposition of the Genesis flood, because human nature is by nature supressive and denialist, etc. But once accepted, the Genesis flood makes all the sense and the 500 accounts like it from around the world are simply foggy renditions of the same material with their various mistakes.