|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4656 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes: genesis 1:1-1:3 forms a complete sentence. genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. you cannot simply insert a gap here, since the primary action takes places in verse 3. we've been over this. please actually learn some hebrew grammar instead of just pretending that you know what you're talking about. You keep repeating that Genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. Do you think if you repeat it enough it will make it a fact?
In the field of linguistics, a sentence is an expression in natural language, and often defined to indicate a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words that generally bear minimal syntactic relation to the words that precede or follow it. A sentence can include words grouped meaningfully to express a statement, question, exclamation, request or command.[1] Source A "declarative sentence" or "declaration", the most common type, commonly makes a statement: "I am going home."
A sentence is an expression in natural language.A declarative sentence makes a statement. A declarative sentence simply states a fact or argument, states an idea, without requiring either an answer or action from the reader, it does not give a command or request, nor does it ask a question. You punctuate your declarative sentences with a simple period. Source A declarative sentence states a fact.
Independent Clause Source An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. An independent clause is a sentence. Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz.Dependent Clause A dependent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb but does not express a complete thought. A dependent clause cannot be a sentence. Often a dependent clause is marked by a dependent marker word. An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. A dependent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb but does not express a complete thought. arachnophilia "genesis 1:1-1:3 forms a complete sentence."
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Somebody thought Genesis 1:1 was a complete sentence as they put a period behind earth. Why did Pusey, Delitzsch, Dillman and Driver believe Genesis 1:1 was a sentence of completed action with an undetermined period of time between verse 1 and verse 2? Why does the Massoretic Text in which the Jewish scholars tried to incorporate enough 'indicators' to guide the reader as to correct punctuation there a small mark which is technically known as Rebhia, which is classified as a "disjunctive aceent"? That "disjunctive aceent" makes the waw that starts verse 2 be translated as but rather than and. arachnophilia, "you cannot simply insert a gap here". I don't insert a gap between verse 1 and verse 2. I have the creation of Heaven and Earth with the history given in Genesis 2:4-4:24 taking place in the light portion of day one that had ended with the evening we find at Genesis 1:2 which God added to that dark period and declared the first day in Genesis 1:5. God's definition of day.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. God defined day as a period of light.God also defined day as a combined period of light and a period of darkness. As far as God's definition of day that is all that constitutes a day.Mankind has added a lot to God's definition of day. arachnophilia, "we've been over this." Yes you keep making your assertions of your beliefs. arachnophilia, " please actually learn some hebrew grammar instead of just pretending that you know what you're talking about." At least my knowledge is comprable with Pusey, Delitzsch, Dillman and Driver as my beliefs were learned and formed before I knew they existed, and it agrees with them. Now I have asked you before to take Genesis 1:1 and explain to me why it is not a declarative statement. I will present Genesis 1:1 again with the Hebrew words of the original text and ask you to take them and show why they are not a complete declarative sentence. First word: Is בראשית the Hebrew word meaning first, beginning, best, chief, with the preposition ב meaning in, on, with, by and we can even add your at?
Translation In beginning Second word: Is ברא a verb of action in the Qal form which means to create, shape, form? Translation created Third word: Is אלהים God the subject of the verb ברא? Translated God Fourth word:
את particle, sign of the definite direct object not translated in English Not translated Fifth word: Is השמים Heaven with the prefix ה the definite article thus translated the Heaven? Sixth word:
ואת particle, sign of the definite direct object not translated in English. With the prefix ו Not translated Seventh word: Is האדץ Earth with the prefix ה the definite article thus translated the Earth? Combined translation or original text:In (or at your preference) beginning created God the Heaven the Earth. In beginning tells us when the event took place.Created tells us the action of the verb was complete. God the subject of the verb tells us who completed the action. the Heaven and the Earth are nouns that tell us what was created. Thus we have a complete sentence composed of a subject and a verb making a declaration That in beginning God created the Heaven the and Earth. This completed action is not dependent upon anything before it or anything after it. Conclusion: Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement of completed action, telling us God created the Heaven and the Earth in the beginning. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Nice oration, but you and other creationists still have no rational explanation for fossil hominid skulls.
All you can do is pull out your catechism and twist, misrepresent, and ignore whatever data you can't make fit. And another give-away. You don't even see the need to be consistent with other creationists! You are pretty much all just making it up as you go. Is it any wonder we don't consider your opinions in this area to be worth anything? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: The man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 dates to 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. So you keep asserting. What are the tests to determine that particular critter from one that lived 10,001 years ago? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Abe,
ApostateAbe writes: ICANT, very well. I take it your model is somewhat like that of Hugh Ross, where each "day" can be interpreted as a very long time, and I take it you are still not sure about whether Lucy and Turkana Boy should be considered human or ape. No Abe I do not hold the view that Hugh Ross did or any of those who hold the general gap theory, or the modified gap theory. I do not believe Satan has been cast out of heaven yet as he was there in Job's day, and according to Revelation he is still there accusing the breathren constantly. As I posted in Message 31 my last post to arachnophilia , I believe God defined what a day is. Genesis 2:4 tells me it begins the generations (history) of the Heaven and the Earth in the day they were created. According to God's definition of day given in Genesis 1:5 that had to be a light period or a light period combined with a dark period. A dark period is not mentioned until Genesis 1:2 which would have ended the light period in which the Heaven and the Earth was created in. According to the history given in Genesis 2:4-4:24 there was a mankind formed from the dust of the ground as well as plants and animals. There is no mention of fish as there was only the river that flowed from Eden and watered the Garden with the flow off being divided into 4 rivers. Woman was made from a rib of the man and they were kicked out of God's paradise because of disobeying a command given to the man. They had children who had children and there was at least one citiy built. The only persons we are told that died was Abel and the young man that Lamech killed. No age is given for anyone in this history. So there was mankind on the earth from the beginning as the man formed from the dust of the ground was the first life form on earth. These people did not exist at Genesis 1:2 as the earth was covered with water. There was no dry land. The fossils of Lucy and Turkana Boy could be descendants of those early people but I doubt it very seriously. The earth had to be much smaller at that time as the trillions of tons of material necessary to produce the oil, coal, and natural gas had to be produced and then covered with rock some of it with 5 miles of rock. So I would assume that the midrash that talks of many worlds would probably be true but God did not see fit to inform Moses of those events. Remember we do not know when the beginnig was. Anything we come up with is just a guess.
ApostateAbe writes: The theory of evolution expects that there should be intermediate forms between humans and lower primates. Darwin expected there would be millions of intermediate forms that would be found. When they were not the theory had to be modified.
ApostateAbe writes: These were most certainly not predicted by anyone who explained life with creation by God. Lets see what the text says.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. The Hebrew word translated 'every beast' means living, alive. It has nothing with any specific living thing but rather all living things.The Hebrew word translated 'every fowl' includes anything that flies. Then it is repeated with the Hebrew words translated 'every living' and 'creature' which means all living beings of any sort. So what creature that we could ever find a fossil of got left out in that verse.
ApostateAbe writes: Your model can accommodate the evidence. With enough imagination, It takes no imagination only reading the text as it was written.
ApostateAbe writes: so can strict mainline young-Earth creationism, There is no way the man formed from the dust of the ground before any other life form in Genesis 2:7 who was placed in a garden and forbiden to eat from a specific tree in the garden, can be the same man that was created on day six in Genesis 1:27 after all other life forms and given permission to eat from all trees, nothing was forbidden. So how could YEC be correct by any streach of the imagination?
ApostateAbe writes: The model with the most probability has all of the criteria. My thesis has an answer to the questions, where the Universe and everything in it came from? Why it exists? And the prediction that life and the unvierse as we know it will cease to exist in the future. Find me a theory that answers those questions. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes: And another give-away. You don't even see the need to be consistent with other creationists! You are pretty much all just making it up as you go. Why do I have to agree with other creationist? As far as the fossil skulls they are proof that a creature with that skull lived at one time unless they are an imatation. But they could have existed at anytime between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I did build cabinets with pull outs to store hundreds of teaching tools of human bodies in a University. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes: Why don't you leave the details of these reconstructions to the experts? You obviously have nothing to contribute to the discussion except a sullen disbelief in all things scientific that may happen to contradict your particular beliefs. I don't mind them reconstructing what they think the fossil should look like. But to take the 5 bones of Lucy's head and construct the beautiful picture presented by ApostateAbe is preposterous. That reconstruction came out of someone's imagination. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
But to take the 5 bones of Lucy's head and construct the beautiful picture presented by ApostateAbe is preposterous.
Lucy isn't the only Australopithecus in existence. Dikika child, for example, is nearly complete. There are also other nearly complete known Australopiths.
That reconstruction came out of someone's imagination. Hardly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
As far as the fossil skulls they are proof that a creature with that skull lived at one time unless they are an imatation. How does creationism explain the trend in morphology? Why do modern human features slowly emerge in hominid fossils over time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANTREADHEBREW writes: You keep repeating that Genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. Do you think if you repeat it enough it will make it a fact? no. i think the fact that it's a fact makes it a fact. i keep repeating it because you don't seem to get it.
Somebody thought Genesis 1:1 was a complete sentence as they put a period behind earth. yes. that person didn't read hebrew very well. you, with six years of biblical hebrew, should know better than to appeal to translations. unless you're making that whole thing up.
I have the creation of Heaven and Earth with the history given in Genesis 2:4-4:24 taking place in the light portion of day one that had ended with the evening we find at Genesis 1:2 which God added to that dark period and declared the first day in Genesis 1:5. nonsense. man was not made on day one.
Yes you keep making your assertions of your beliefs. grammar is not a matter of belief.
Now I have asked you before to take Genesis 1:1 and explain to me why it is not a declarative statement. I will present Genesis 1:1 again with the Hebrew words of the original text and ask you to take them and show why they are not a complete declarative sentence. First word: Is בראשית the Hebrew word meaning first, beginning, best, chief, with the preposition ב meaning in, on, with, by and we can even add your at? quote: Combined translation or original text: In (or at your preference) beginning created God the Heaven the Earth. kludgy, and horrible. try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4656 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
quote:Yes, that's right. Sort of. I have Darwin's prediction at the top of the OP. He didn't say "millions," but he did present a question: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?" What I left out was the remainder of that chapter (Chapter X) where he answers that question. You can read all about it here. His actual prediction was: "...so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous." And we find evidence of exactly that. If you object that not enough intermediate varieties have been found to confirm the prediction, then I suppose that would be relevant if you had an explanation with greater explanatory power that covers the existing evidence of seemingly intermediate forms. The debate shouldn't really be about what Darwin predicted, and I shouldn't have brought it up, because it can get into an irrelevant debate about 19th century history. If Darwin predicted no such thing, then the theory of evolution and the evidence would each have same weight. I brought up Darwin's prediction mainly because it is a demonstration of the relevant point: the theory of evolution has explanatory power of the intermediate forms in the fossil record. Just so you know exactly what I mean, here is the formal definition of explanatory power: The hypothesis with the greatest explanatory power must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other. That is a rephrase from C. Behan McCullagh's Justifying Historical Descriptions. Another way to say it is: the evidence must follow from the theory with the greatest probability. To explain further, you quoted a verse in Genesis that says that Adam named "every living creature," which could successfully be interpreted to include Lucy, Turkana Boy, et cetera, just like any living thing you can possibly imagine. Since the theory of evolution expects the specific evidence much more so than the model of special creation by God, then the theory of evolution has explanatory power, and it wins the battle of probability. If no intermediate forms between human and other primates were found in the fossil record, despite centuries of thorough searching and finding everything but such fossil intermediates, then the theory of evolution would have a big problem, but the model of special creation by God would score the same. If, instead, we found intermediates between men and birds, then the theory of evolution would have an even larger problem, as it would imply that the family tree forms an impossibly looping branch. Before Darwin's theory, humans were placed by Linnaeus in the taxonomy of great apes. But, the model of special creation by God scores the same. If, instead of intermediate forms, we found fossils that form an entirely different structure of life, not a family tree, but a rectangular grid, then the model of special creation would hang its head high, but the theory of evolution would not even be on the table.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Darwin expected there would be millions of intermediate forms that would be found. When they were not the theory had to be modified. What a preposterous lie. Do you ever feel ashamed of yourself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ApostateAbe writes: If you object that not enough intermediate varieties have been found to confirm the prediction, then I suppose that would be relevant if you had an explanation with greater explanatory power that covers the existing evidence of seemingly intermediate forms. just so you know, you will never find enough to satisfy a creationist. they refuse to connect the dots. i played this game once with randman. anybody remember him? see Message 75 and Message 33. they refuse to make the intuitive leap, no matter how obvious, and connect one species to the next, even though they will admit to speciation. every new intermediate form means two more missing links. we could have a fossil record of every individual ever, and they will still refuse to see the relationships. a picture where the entire outline is populated by dots, and they'd never see the line. you can't win this battle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4656 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
arachnophilia, I haven't lost all hope. Even when you don't see it happen, it happens. Some people really do change their minds in light of the evidence. I am one of them. It works best when you don't try to force it down anyone's throat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, best of luck with ICANT, then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
Maybe it is preposterous. What a preposterous lie. But he said they would be numerous in all stratas. At the present we have a known 2 million species on earth. Scientist say there could be 100 million species on earth today. Scientist say 99.9% of the life forms that have lived on earth are extinct. Taking our known number of 2 million life forms and that is only .01% of life forms that have lived on earth. If these scientist know what they are talking about that would mean there have been at least 200 million extinct species. So if they are correct there should be millions of fossils of extinct life forms found in the many different layers that it takes to cover the life forms that produced our oil, coal, and natural gas to the depth of 5 miles. Then again I may just be being preposterous. 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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024