Forum

#1 http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/visual.html In the link you will see several examples of pictures dinosaurs drawn by ancient man. How could ancient man know anything about dinosaurs if dinosaurs supposed to millions of years old? Top

Has anyone, when they tried to post, been told no?

I once asked someone about their five biggest contradictions with the Bible, and they immediately came up with five well-thought-out ones. I asked if those were his; they were things that bothered him about scripture, he said, "No, he asked AI." Now I asked for his, he gave me five, not his, so his answer was a lie; if he had any, he didn't share them. I told him that and reminded him I could ask AI to give me answers for why those were not contradictions, and AI would have given me reasons for that, too. It gives answers to the questions asked the way they are asked. If we are going to try to learn anything real, we need to critically examine the questions from several points of view, not just the one we like or favor. My wife taught debate, and her students had to be able to debate both sides of every issue. This forced them to learn all of the strengths and weaknesses of the topic from both sides. If you hold one side in contempt, it will not be the topic, but your attitude that hinders you from an honest examination of the truth about any topic. If you hold those who hold a different view from yours in contempt, you’ll learn nothing; you will live in an echo chamber. The only solace you'll enjoy is your delusion that you are in the majority because the only voices you listen to will be those who agree with you; others are less than. Sadly, a large portion of the populace worldwide would prefer to silence the voices that disagree with them, labeling them names at the first hint of disagreement, as if that wasn’t unhealthy, and accusing them of hate instead of respecting an honest disagreement from another individual.

When contemplating the universe and God, do you think it requires more faith to believe that the universe we live was created by God, or that it is here but there is no God? The point of my question is regardless of your answer the universe is here as is, so both answers must account for everything in it.   That being true both responces equally must carry the same weight making them equal in necessity explanations for everything.

I know this isn't about Evolution, of course. But Big Bang and Evolution always seem to be intertwined for some odd reason. (Maybe because both fly in the face of Young Earth. Not sure.) So, I am starting this thread, hoping it will be fruitful.

Do you think cells were formed from the outside meaning an agent acted up them? Do you think we were formed from the outside meaning an agent acted upon us too?

Do complex instructions come from minds, or could mindless processes write them? The difficulty of the instructions is a huge part of the question, but the medium in which they were written adds to the question. If they were carved in stone, painted on a cave wall, written with a pin or pencil, found in digital code, or set up in biological systems, what would that add to mindlessness being able to pull it off, or do all of them suggest a mind was at work?

One of my great pet peeves is that many times and almost without exception when a talk, lecture, or debates occur, what happens here and elsewhere, instead of the things that they have said come under scrutiny, the speakers are examined instead. I invite everyone to both examine the topics and how they are covered looking at the things that are said without attempting to deep dive in the person speaking. The other thing I would love to see in our talks is for everyone to post links that support their points of view that they are willing to defend with questions concerning what is said, NOT the people saying them. So debates, lectures, even sermons I don't care, if the talk supports one view over the other let the subject, not the person be where we go, is that possible, or does who someone is mean more to you than what they say?

Interesting article about key differences that make humans cognitively different from non-human primate. What I find especially interesting (and relevant) is how more and more we are finding that the key differences are not in different genes in genomes (DNA) per se but the transcriptome (RNA and how RNA regulates gene expression). Put more simply, the differences are less due to different genes, and more due to how the *same* genes are expressed. https://phys.org/news/2023-12-reveals-genes-humans-primates-cognitive.amp

(30) J. Warner Wallace: Tampering with Evidence - 2018 Xenos Summer Institute - YouTube Evidence for creation discussed by a cold case detective.

The First Two Cells in a Human Embryo Contribute Disproportionately to Fetal Development | The Scientist Magazine® (the-scientist.com) A lot of information driving these processes

YECs often claim that the accepted view of the fossil record is not based on facts and reality, but is a construct based on evolutionary assumptions. YECs further like to claim that their 'flood model' interpretation of the fossil record is an equally valid (if not better) interpretation of the same data that scientists interpret according to an 'evolutionary framework'. In short, YECs claim the difference between the two views is merely one of starting assumptions and different interpretations of the same data. Afterall, they say, paleontology and geology---unlike repeatable, observational, experimental science (such as chemistry)---are 'historical sciences' based on past history that no one was present to observe, so how can we really know for sure. To the unwary and those who only have cursory knowledge of the fossil record (which is just about everyone) such rhetoric might sound like it has a ring of truth to it or might even seem reasonable. Unfortunately, it is just rhetoric, misinformation and spin. First, not only is there no recognized experimental vs. historical science dichotomy in modern science, in some ways the so-called 'historical sciences' have an advantage over the more heavily inductive 'experimental sciences' which must generalize findings and can never test every possible case of something to make absolutely sure, because the fossil record--as an unchanging record of the past--is what it is and will always remain so. Second, it is an absolute fallacy that YEC flood geology is just an equally valid interpretation of the same data. It is not. YEC flood geology is a selective choosing and cherry picking of isolated bits of data while ignoring the rest of the data or twisting the facts to fit the theory. ***The proposition I put forward and defend here is that when it comes to the fossil record there are really only two possible interpretations of the data (and YECs don't like either one): it is either the result of evolution or progressive creation (or a combination of the two). There really are no other possibilities. We are limited to these two possibilities not because of any 'evolutionary framework' or a priori assumptions, but because those are the only possibilities that reality allows. The fossil record is not an imaginary fiction or mental construct, but a consistent, unchanging record of the past that is what it is. It is a factual record. This is important to unpack, because anti-evolution rhetoric can confuse people into thinking that the order or sequence of fossils in the record is arranged according to an evolutionary framework that 'assumes' old ages. But the truth is the fossil record has pretty much looked the same way it always has for hundreds of years since the inception of paleontology EVEN BEFORE Darwin's theory of evolution: It is a record of *succession* of different types of life existing on this planet at different times. It is a record of *replacement*. Diverse and very different types of life existed at different times in earth's history. A group of organisms exist for a time then goes extinct and are replaced by a different assemblage of organisms which then goes extinct and are replaced by yet another different group of life forms, and so on and so on and so forth. What's more, the basic pattern of succession is effectively the same worldwide. The order or sequence of different types of life on this planet over time is in fact so reliable that W. Smith (the father of geology) was able to accurately predict the pattern all across England (and eventually the world) using his still recognized *principle of faunal succession* in the 1700s to early 1800s long BEFORE Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. *Let me say that again because it bears repeating: the succession of life we see in the fossil record is effectively the same wherever we look at it worldwide and this succession or order of appearance and extinctions of different life forms at different times in earth's history was already a well-known and recognized fact BEFORE Darwin's theory of evolution. Heck, before Darwin was even born. This sequence of succession is NOT an evolutionary construct but a known observational fact that predates Darwin. There was also no 'assumption' of long ages, but evidence of long ages that was recognized BEFORE Darwin and before radiometric dating. Put another way, even though radiometric dating *is* reliable for determining 'absolute ages' we don't even need to appeal to it. We can simply use the 'relative' dating principles that Steno established back in the 1600s--a couple centuries before Darwin. Principles that everyone (even YECs) accepts today. By using these principles we can determine the relative ages of different fossil bearing units by their physical relationships to each other. No radiometric dating needed. No assumption of long ages. *The OBSERVED order of fossil succession combined with the physical relationships of rock units, together show that the fossil record is *much* longer than a year (and can't be the product of a one year global flood), and further demonstrates unequivocally the OBSERVATIONAL FACT that all the different types of life on this planet did NOT appear at the same time, but appeared at different times in earth's history in a series of predictable succession-extinctions that are recorded worldwide in the fossil record. Early paleontologists and geologists who predated Darwin (including Christians) recognized that the fossil record showed that there had been numerous successions or turnovers of different types of life that always occurred in the same order. Some of them interpreted these turnovers as a series of separate creation ('progressive creation')-extinction/catastrophe events (with Noah's flood possibly the last one recorded; but even Christians of the time recognized the fossil record wasn't the result of a single Noah's flood catastrophe in the span of a year but represented a much longer period of time and multiple turnovers/successions of life). ***The fossil record still looks the same today as it did back then before Darwin was even around. It is a record of changing life on this planet of different types of life existing and going extinct at different times, and not at the same time, encompassing a period of time much, much longer than a year. As such, there are really only two possible explanations of the observational facts: evolution or progressive creation (or some combo of the two).

This thread is for all things Evolution.I am creating this thread, because I do not see another one like it in the forums. (To my surprise.)

@TruthMuse & @stephen_33 While Discovery Institute (DI) continues to publish articles, I haven't seen any recent updates to their formal statements of ID. Their FAQs gives the following statements The statement on "what is intelligent design" directs to a 2005 "Not by Chance" article by Stephen Meyer. Here's a summary based on that article & the FAQs: ID rejects the charge that they originated with creationism: "Instead, it was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon" "who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule." Evidence/Arguments they cite in support: The fine-tuning argument from cosmology: "British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, the fine-tuning of numerous physical parameters in the universe suggested that “a superintellect had monkeyed with physics” for our benefit." Behe's irreducible complexity Dembski's specified complexity *This statement by Stephen Meyer, seems the best summary statement of the ID position: "The theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected. Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed." *Summary: ID holds that there are features of the universe and living systems that are best explained by an intelligent cause. And that the origin of life, and evolution requires an intelligent cause. *Importantly, they do not reject evolution and common descent, like creationists do.