Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 1:21 PM
423 online now:
Coyote, frako, jar, NoNukes, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 416 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,941 Year: 27,547/21,208 Month: 1,460/1,714 Week: 303/365 Day: 30/42 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 121 of 137 (601929)
01-25-2011 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by arachnophilia
01-24-2011 11:08 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Hi arach,

arachnophilia writes:

and this is precisely the problem. that's not what the verse means.

Does Biblical Hebrew have tenses's? No

Are all verbs in Biblical Hebrew either perfect or imperfect? Yes

Does perfect indicate the action is complete? Yes

Does imperfect indicate the action is ongoing? Yes

Is there one verb in Genesis 1:1? Yes

Is that verb Qal perfect 3rd masculine singular? Yes

Does that verb preceed the subject of the verb in the Hebrew text? Yes

Does that verb mean shape, fashion, create? Yes

Is God always the subject of this verb? Yes

If you disagree with any of the answers please present your refutation.

Conclusion:

The verb and its subject in Genesis 1:1 translates:

created God but in English would read better God created.

God is the subject of the verb of completed action.

So the direct objects of the verse (Heaven and Earth) existed as a completed action of God.

Do you believe water began to exist before the Heavens and the Earth?

God Bless,

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by arachnophilia, posted 01-24-2011 11:08 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2011 9:38 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 126 by arachnophilia, posted 01-25-2011 10:22 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 122 of 137 (601961)
01-25-2011 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by ICANT
01-25-2011 1:53 AM


Fossils, remember?
What does any of that have to do with fossils?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 1:53 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 3:32 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 127 by arachnophilia, posted 01-25-2011 10:26 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 123 of 137 (602014)
01-25-2011 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Coyote
01-25-2011 9:38 AM


Re: Fossils, remember?
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

What does any of that have to do with fossils?

From a Biblical point of view everything.

If the Bible tell us that the Heavens and the Earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old it contradicts science.

If as I have put forth the Bible tell us that the Heaven and the Earth was created in the beginning with a period of light that lasted an unspecified period prior to Genesis 1:2 and ended with the darkness found there, then there is no contradiction of science by the Bible.

The history of the day God created the Heaven and the Earth is given in Genesis 2:4-4:24. In that history mankind was formed from the dust of the ground as was all other creatures.

According to the Bible text there was at least one extinction event that occured prior to Genesis 1:2 and depending on how long that period of darkness had lasted would determine the extent of that extinction.

Could there have been more events such as that extinction? Sure there could have been many. God is eternal so we have eternity past which had lasted from the beginning until God declared the light period which had ended with the dark period of Genesis 1:2 day one which our translators translated the first day. God's declaration of day one is for the benefit of modern mankind so we can regulate our lives.

The fossils that you and others dig up and examine are of creatures who have lived in the past. You and others try to put dates on when they existed. That date makes no difference to me or the Bible as you are dating existence.

The fossils that you line up and tell me they have simularaties and therefore are descended from a common ancestor is your opinion. That makes sense to you as it fits your worldview.

They could have been created by a creator and lived at different times and became extinct in any extinction event that science tells us has taken place, or died of natural causes.

The history of the creating of mankind and creatures begins in Genesis 2:7 and does not end until 6 to 10 thousand years ago which is recorded in Genesis 2:2.

The Hebrew word translated rested that many make a fuss over being the sabbath means cease, desist, and then rest. So God ceased His creating at that time and has not created since.

So any fossil that you or anyone could find, could have been created between the beginning and Genesis 2:2.

We have trillions of gallon of oil in the earth much natural gas and coal. It took trillions upon trillions of tons of mass to form these fuels. Many of them are buried miles deep in the earth. So the mass had to exist then be covered by material that formed rock miles thick.

Where did all that material come from?

The Bible allows plenty of time for such a process to take place.

So what is said in the text has everything to do with fossils.

God Bless,

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2011 9:38 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2011 8:51 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-25-2011 10:15 PM ICANT has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 124 of 137 (602060)
01-25-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
01-25-2011 3:32 PM


Re: Fossils, remember?
So what is said in the text has everything to do with fossils.

Nonsense.

The Bible is such a gargantuan collection of conflicting values that anyone can prove anything from it.

Robert A. Heinlein, The Number of the Beast


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 3:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 125 of 137 (602065)
01-25-2011 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
01-25-2011 3:32 PM


Re: Fossils, remember?
Coyote, in message 124 writes:

So what is said in the text has everything to do with fossils.

Nonsense.

I agree with Coyote. At best, to show that we are wrong, you are going to need to make much more explicit what that alleged connection is.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 3:32 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 01-26-2011 1:59 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 126 of 137 (602066)
01-25-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ICANT
01-25-2011 1:53 AM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Does perfect indicate the action is complete? Yes

Does imperfect indicate the action is ongoing? Yes

quote:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ

imperfect.

quote:
בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם

and perfect. same verse. same action. and one which, i believe, we both can agree is complete.

Is God always the subject of this verb? Yes

no. there is nothing that says that anything specific has to be the subject of a particular verb.

quote:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אִם-עַם-רַב אַתָּה עֲלֵה לְךָ הַיַּעְרָה, וּבֵרֵאתָ לְךָ שָׁם, בְּאֶרֶץ הַפְּרִזִּי וְהָרְפָאִים: כִּי-אָץ לְךָ, הַר-אֶפְרָיִם

The verb and its subject in Genesis 1:1 translates:

created God but in English would read better God created.

is this even worth mentioning? yes, english (and, btw modern hebrew) have a different grammatical word order.

God is the subject of the verb of completed action.

correct, genesis 1:1 mentions an action that is complete -- god creating -- but those are, however, not the only words present. had the phrase simply been "god created {heaven and earth}", there would be no issue. however, the word that begins the sentence modifies that meaning.

rather, verse 1:1 describes that what follows it described what occurred at the beginning of that complete action. the fact that the action is complete has no real bearing on that fact.

Do you believe water began to exist before the Heavens and the Earth?

it doesn't matter what i believe, but that is what the texts says yes. this is, in fact, relatively easy to demonstrate.

quote:
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:7-8


heaven was made on day two.

quote:
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. ... And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:9-10,13


earth was made on day three. yet,

quote:
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. .... And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:2,5b


the waters existed on day one.

this is not a matter of opinion. it's what the text says -- and the only reading that makes any sense whatsoever is that the first verse, no matter how you choose to read it, must describe the rest of the chapter. dependent clause or not.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 1:53 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 127 of 137 (602067)
01-25-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Coyote
01-25-2011 9:38 AM


Re: Fossils, remember?
Coyote writes:

What does any of that have to do with fossils?

marginal at best. ICANT was attempting to explain fossil hominids, iirc, by cramming them into some sort of gap between an initial and a secondary creation. i think the fact that this does not fit the text creationists claim to honor is a valid rebuttal, but i agree that it doesn't particularly fit the topic.

i've referred him once or twice to a more appropriate topic.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2011 9:38 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 128 of 137 (602136)
01-26-2011 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Adminnemooseus
01-25-2011 10:15 PM


Re: Fossils, remember?
Hi Adminnemooseus,

Adminnemooseus writes:

I agree with Coyote. At best, to show that we are wrong, you are going to need to make much more explicit what that alleged connection is.

Throughout the thread everyone is arguing because things look similar they had to have a common ancestor. The skulls presented is the example set forth.

My argument is that they do not have to have a common ancestor. But for that to be possible then the Bible has to be able to account for an existence of more than 6,000 years which arachnophilia is arguing, by trying to turn a Biblical Hebrew Qal perfect verb of completed action into a imperfect verb of ongoing action. His problem is the only way that could be accomplished is if the writer had used an Alef prefix on the verb.

If I am not allowed to prove that the Bible has creation taking place in the beginning which was a very long time ago there is no way I can discuss the similarites of the skulls presented is not necessaraly the result of a common ancestor.

This is arachnophilia's intention.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-25-2011 10:15 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2011 10:49 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 129 of 137 (602234)
01-26-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
01-26-2011 1:59 PM


Re: Fossils, remember?
ICANTREADTHEOTHERGUYSARGUMENT writes:

by trying to turn a Biblical Hebrew Qal perfect verb of completed action into a imperfect verb of ongoing action

this is not what i'm doing. the translation i gave above is a perfect construct, a fact you continue to ignore. granted, it can be read as incomplete, but english is actually not clear grammatically in this case in the way that the hebrew is. it is not my intention to argue that creation, as described in the bible, is incomplete currently.

just that your reading, which posits an earth significantly older than 6-10K years, is untenable. and that it's an inappropriate misrepresentation of the text in order to excuse ad hoc explanation for scientific knowledge that would have been unknown to the authors.

His problem is the only way that could be accomplished is if the writer had used an Alef prefix on the verb.

alef would denote first person singular imperfect verbs. you're looking for third person masculine singular, which would be a yud.

If I am not allowed to prove that the Bible has creation taking place in the beginning which was a very long time ago there is no way I can discuss the similarites of the skulls presented is not necessaraly the result of a common ancestor.

This is arachnophilia's intention.

it is not my fault that your explanation violates proper biblical exegesis. as do most creationist explanations of modern science, btw.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Big "off-topic" banner.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 01-26-2011 1:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 130 of 137 (602376)
01-27-2011 9:34 PM


Topic is a terminal mess - Call for final statements
Each member gets ONE final message. It's probably best that they not be a reply to a previous message - Use that "General Reply" button and do your summation.

Tentative plan - Topic will be closed Friday night or Saturday (as in, 24+ hours from now).

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit:

Please subtitle your final statement with something starting with "Final statement -"

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 131 of 137 (602380)
01-27-2011 10:32 PM


Final statement - It is clear...
It is clear from this thread that creationists have no true knowledge of hominid fossil skulls.

They derive their "knowledge" from religious belief, not scholarly study. They proffer their opinions stemming from that belief oblivious to (or uncaring of) how badly those opinions conflict with the information produced from actual study of those fossil skulls and the related evidence.

Why anyone would take those uninformed opinions seriously is a mystery deeper than any addressed by science.

But as usual, Heinlein summed it up well:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the "Final statement -" to the subtitle.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 132 of 137 (602398)
01-28-2011 1:10 AM


Final Statement
131 messages and still no answer to the question in the topic.

How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 133 of 137 (602403)
01-28-2011 2:59 AM


Final statement?

The fossil record is an instance of real things that actually exist. In short, the fossil record is reality.

Creationists will not discuss reality.

I shall not speculate as to their psychological state, nor entertain conjectures as to whether or not they are frightened of reality.

I shall merely note that they are in fact unwilling to discuss reality; and that they are completely unable to explain it.


ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 134 of 137 (602416)
01-28-2011 10:19 AM


Fossils
Fossils are the preserved remains of creatures that have existed in the past.

Many of those preserved creatures looks similar.

But that is what designers do. They improve on earlier designs to reach the present product.

So where do I as a person that believes in creation believe the fossils came from? Well there has been an eternity past in which the earth existed. In that eternal past God was creating as he did not stop creating until 6,000 years ago. That accounts for any fossil you can find that dates until the present as they were created after their own kind.

Now the scientific view can be found Here.

Overview

This early human species had a very large brow ridge, a larger braincase and flatter face than older early human species. It was first early human species to live in colder climates, their short, wide bodies were a likely adaptation to conserving heat. It lived at the time of the oldest definite control of fire and use of wooden spears, and it was the first early human species to routinely hunt large animals. This early human also broke new ground; it was the first species to build shelterscreating simple dwellings out of wood and rock.

The unknown

We dont know everything about early humansbut we keep learning more! Paleoanthropologists are constantly in the field, excavating new areas with groundbreaking technology, and continually filling in some of the gaps about our understanding of human evolution.

Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo heidelbergensis that may be answered with future discoveries:

1.Did this early human species indeed range in time from 1.3 million to 200,000 years ago, and in geography from Africa to Europe to Asia? Or are there more than one species represented among the fossils that some scientists call H. heidelbergensis (including H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, and H. rhodesiensis)?
2.Many scientists think this species was ancestral to our own, but which species was the ancestor of H. heidelbergensis?
3.Did H. heidelbergensis have any cultural or behavioral adaptations that facilitated it living in colder climates?
4.Did regional groups or populations of H. heidelbergensis exhibit any unique behaviors or anatomical adaptations?

In the overview this is presented as our ancestor.

In the unknowns question 2 there is a mention that many scientist believe this creature is our ancestor.

There is no proof but they have faith.

The only evidence is we look simiar and they controled fire, used wooden spears, and constructed shelters out of wood and stone.

According to that I guess bees would fit well as our human ancestor as they have been building houses out of wood since they began to exist.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Panda, posted 01-28-2011 11:01 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1306 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 135 of 137 (602421)
01-28-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by ICANT
01-28-2011 10:19 AM


Final Statement
ICANT writes:

The only evidence is we look simiar and they controled fire, used wooden spears, and constructed shelters out of wood and stone.

According to that I guess bees would fit well as our human ancestor as they have been building houses out of wood since they began to exist.


I think this sums up the creationists' argument:
"Bees could be our ancestors as they look similar to us, control fire, use wooden spears and construct shelters out of wood and stone."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2011 10:19 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017