Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:28 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

No, Genesis 1 is quite clear that humans came after animals but not from animals.

I don't care what Genesis 1 says, however Genesis 1 is quite clearly wrong, as the evidence clearly show that we did evolve from other animals.

I also note that you didn't address my point regarding your comment that we can't be apes because we are humans which is the equivalent of saying that chimpanzees cannot be apes because they are chimpanzees. This line of reasoning may be acceptable from a six year old child but I cannot believe a fully grown adult could make such an argument.

To say that we are animals now is pure lunacy.

Actually to to say we are animals is a fact just as it is a fact to say that dogs or whales are animals. To believe that your particular book of myths is the inerrant word of God however is lunacy.

But your ‘scientific evidence’ is not consistent with scripture, nor is it necessarily the truth.

I don't care if the scientific evidence is consistent with scripture that is the problem of those who choose to believe in scripture. If, however the scientific evidence is inconsistent with scripture then those that reject the scientific evidence because it contradicts scripture end up making themselves look ridiculous.

I also made no reference to truth and nor does science. Science provides provisional and testable explanations for natural phenomena. Evolutionary theory does a great job of explaining the diversity of life around us whilst such evidence falsifies the biblical view of creation.

For centuries scientists had us all convinced that the sun orbited the Earth. No doubt that was the ‘truth’ of the day.

Any it was scientists who were able to show that this view was incorrect and replaced it with a much better model which is consistent with the observational evidence. Just as scientists were able to show that the biblical view of creation is incorrect and replaced it with evolutionary theory which does a much better job of explaining the data.

Evolutionary theory may one day be overturned just like any other scientific theory however any theory that replaces Evolution has to explain the evidence from fields such as genetics, palaeontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology.etc which the creationist position is incapable of explaining without those who hold it resorting to falsehoods & misrepresenting the evidence.

Wanting something to be true does not necessarily mean you are biased.

Wanting something to be true doesn't mean you are biased, however it does often lead to confirmation bias where you reject data that does not conform to your particular position. This is why it is silly to start from the position that the bible is true and then find "evidence" to support this position post hoc.

If that were the case, I could accuse atheists who hate religion of the same crime – they blaspheme against the Holy Spirit because they are stubborn and want to be their own masters

I can't speak for other atheists however I'm an atheist because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of gods. If evidence could be provided to show that a god existed then I would happily accept such evidence.

You on the other hand are suggested with your quote from Matthew 7:7 that we should start with the belief that the "Holy Spirit" exists and then we will be provided with the evidence, which is putting the cart before the horse.

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:40 pm  

Gareth1984 wrote:

I don't care what Genesis 1 says, however Genesis 1 is quite clearly wrong, as the evidence clearly show that we did evolve from other animals.

There is no evidence that we evolved from animals. If there is, I'd love for you to show me it. That's if you can spare 5 minutes away from swinging from tree to tree eating bananas.

I also note that you didn't address my point regarding your comment that we can't be apes because we are humans which is the equivalent of saying that chimpanzees cannot be apes because they are chimpanzees.

How can we be apes when apes are animals? My 3 year old son knows what animals are. You obviously don't. Next time I go the the zoo I'll be sure to look at the people enclosure (as this is an RL forum, let's call this Wheldon Road).

This line of reasoning may be acceptable from a six year old child but I cannot believe a fully grown adult could make such an argument

My 3 year old just laughed when I told him a fully grown human didn't know the difference between people and animals.

Seriously, I see where you're coming from in that we have similar genetics. However, whilst it may appear that we are part of the same family, where you incorrectly see 'evolution', I see God's fingerprints. Tell me, if you were molding a batch of figurines from the same clay, there would be similarities between the physical properties of each one, wouldn't there? If you were painting many different styles of pictures,they'd all have the same signature, wouldn't they?

We all have God's signature imprinted in us. Just because we see it in animals doesn't mean we are the same as them -it means we have the same creator.

I don't care if the scientific evidence is consistent with scripture that is the problem of those who choose to believe in scripture.

It's no problem for me. It's actually very easy to reconcile.

If, however the scientific evidence is inconsistent with scripture then those that reject the scientific evidence because it contradicts scripture end up making themselves look ridiculous.

Jesus and his apostles were mocked. The opinions of the eternally lost sadden me, but don't embarrass me.

I also made no reference to truth and nor does science. Science provides provisional and testable explanations for natural phenomena. Evolutionary theory does a great job of explaining the diversity of life around us whilst such evidence falsifies the biblical view of creation.

The biblical account is entirely consistent with what we can see before us.

Any it was scientists who were able to show that this view was incorrect and replaced it with a much better model which is consistent with the observational evidence.

Christian scientists did, yes.

Just as scientists were able to show that the biblical view of creation is incorrect and replaced it with evolutionary theory which does a much better job of explaining the data.

Scientists have demonstrated no such thing.

Evolutionary theory may one day be overturned just like any other scientific theory

Aha! Yowzer! Yes, you recognise that it is fallible.

however any theory that replaces Evolution has to explain the evidence from fields such as genetics, palaeontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology.etc which the creationist position is incapable of explaining without those who hold it resorting to falsehoods & misrepresenting the evidence.

Care to tell me how creationism fails to explain each of the above?

Wanting something to be true doesn't mean you are biased, however it does often lead to confirmation bias where you reject data that does not conform to your particular position.

Often, but not always.

This is why it is silly to start from the position that the bible is true and then find "evidence" to support this position post hoc.

Like I said, I used to share your view and ended up being a Christian.

I can't speak for other atheists however I'm an atheist because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of gods. If evidence could be provided to show that a god existed then I would happily accept such evidence.

You are not part of the elect. Yet, at least.

You on the other hand are suggested with your quote from Matthew 7:7 that we should start with the belief that the "Holy Spirit" exists and then we will be provided with the evidence, which is putting the cart before the horse.

Mate, that's the way it is. I don't make the rules.

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:20 pm  

kirkstaller wrote: There is no evidence that we evolved from animals. If there is, I'd love for you to show me it. I don't have time to provide a list of peer reviewed scientific papers however the following link compiles some of the evidence which supports evolutionary theory. The article is supported by peer reviewed scientific papers http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ The below paper provides an excellent example of evolution in action although there are many other instances of evolution being directly observed in the lab and in nature http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/ I know however you will reject any evidence that i provide as it contradicts your particular book of myths. Although you are correct that we didn't evolve from animals as we are still animals. That's if you can spare 5 minutes away from swinging from tree to tree eating bananas. This inane comment does nothing other than demonstrate a lack of maturity on your part. How can we be apes when apes are animals? This is like asking how can someone who is English be a Brit when Brits are Europeans. I cannot believe anybody could be ask such a dumb question, although given your previous comment regarding humans not being apes because we are humans nothing you say surprises me any more. Do you actually think about what you post before you actually type? Creationists who ask why if we "evolved from monkeys" there are still monkeys around sound like intellectuals in comparison to what you have written. My 3 year old son knows what animals are. You obviously don't. Given that you somehow think that humans do not belong to the kingdom of Animalia I suggest that I have a much better grasp of what constitutes an animal than you do. I hope you do not pass down such ignorance to your son. My 3 year old just laughed when I told him a fully grown human didn't know the difference between people and animals. I'd assume he laughed because he realised that even at three years of age he is already more intelligent than his dad. The difference between people and animals is about the same as the difference between Bradfordians and Europeans Seriously, I see where you're coming from in that we have similar genetics. However, whilst it may appear that we are part of the same family, where you incorrectly see 'evolution', I see God's fingerprints. Tell me, if you were molding a batch of figurines from the same clay, there would be similarities between the physical properties of each one, wouldn't there? If you were painting many different styles of pictures,they'd all have the same signature, wouldn't they? There is far more to genetics than just similarity amongst species. Creationists may be able to argue away genetic similarities with "same genes, same designer" however there is far more to the genetic evidence than mere similarities. The link I provided provides examples of exactly where creationism is unable provide a sufficient explanation for genetic similarities. Engenous retroviral insertion is one of the clearest examples which cannot be explained by creationists. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses We all have God's signature imprinted in us. Just because we see it in animals doesn't mean we are the same as them -it means we have the same creator. No it doesn't if humans and other animals shared for instance a different genetic code then this would not refute creationism however had such an observation occurred then evolution would be falsified. #similarities do not in anyway mean we have the same creator as they are not a prediction of creationism, they are however a prediction of evolutionary theory and such observations could have falsified evolution had they been different. Christian scientists did, yes. Which is completely irrelevant to the point I made. However it was Christian doctrine which was used as justification for the sun orbiting the earth. Scientists have demonstrated no such thing. Yes they have. Simply pretending the evidence that shows that you creation myth is just that a myth and that evolution provides the best explanation of the biological data does not exist will make it go away. Care to tell me how creationism fails to explain each of the above? I don't have time to go into full detail, however creationism cannot explain the genetic similarities amongst living organisms as the above link shows. Creationism also cannot explain the existence of transitional fossils hence why creationists deny the existence of transitional fossils despite the fact there are numerous examples of such fossils

kirkstaller wrote: There is no evidence that we evolved from animals. If there is, I'd love for you to show me it. I don't have time to provide a list of peer reviewed scientific papers however the following link compiles some of the evidence which supports evolutionary theory. The article is supported by peer reviewed scientific papers http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ The below paper provides an excellent example of evolution in action although there are many other instances of evolution being directly observed in the lab and in nature http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/ I know however you will reject any evidence that i provide as it contradicts your particular book of myths. Although you are correct that we didn't evolve from animals as we are still animals. That's if you can spare 5 minutes away from swinging from tree to tree eating bananas. This inane comment does nothing other than demonstrate a lack of maturity on your part. How can we be apes when apes are animals? This is like asking how can someone who is English be a Brit when Brits are Europeans. I cannot believe anybody could be ask such a dumb question, although given your previous comment regarding humans not being apes because we are humans nothing you say surprises me any more. Do you actually think about what you post before you actually type? Creationists who ask why if we "evolved from monkeys" there are still monkeys around sound like intellectuals in comparison to what you have written. My 3 year old son knows what animals are. You obviously don't. Given that you somehow think that humans do not belong to the kingdom of Animalia I suggest that I have a much better grasp of what constitutes an animal than you do. I hope you do not pass down such ignorance to your son. My 3 year old just laughed when I told him a fully grown human didn't know the difference between people and animals. I'd assume he laughed because he realised that even at three years of age he is already more intelligent than his dad. The difference between people and animals is about the same as the difference between Bradfordians and Europeans Seriously, I see where you're coming from in that we have similar genetics. However, whilst it may appear that we are part of the same family, where you incorrectly see 'evolution', I see God's fingerprints. Tell me, if you were molding a batch of figurines from the same clay, there would be similarities between the physical properties of each one, wouldn't there? If you were painting many different styles of pictures,they'd all have the same signature, wouldn't they? There is far more to genetics than just similarity amongst species. Creationists may be able to argue away genetic similarities with "same genes, same designer" however there is far more to the genetic evidence than mere similarities. The link I provided provides examples of exactly where creationism is unable provide a sufficient explanation for genetic similarities. Engenous retroviral insertion is one of the clearest examples which cannot be explained by creationists. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses We all have God's signature imprinted in us. Just because we see it in animals doesn't mean we are the same as them -it means we have the same creator. No it doesn't if humans and other animals shared for instance a different genetic code then this would not refute creationism however had such an observation occurred then evolution would be falsified. #similarities do not in anyway mean we have the same creator as they are not a prediction of creationism, they are however a prediction of evolutionary theory and such observations could have falsified evolution had they been different. Christian scientists did, yes. Which is completely irrelevant to the point I made. However it was Christian doctrine which was used as justification for the sun orbiting the earth. Scientists have demonstrated no such thing. Yes they have. Simply pretending the evidence that shows that you creation myth is just that a myth and that evolution provides the best explanation of the biological data does not exist will make it go away. Care to tell me how creationism fails to explain each of the above? I don't have time to go into full detail, however creationism cannot explain the genetic similarities amongst living organisms as the above link shows. Creationism also cannot explain the existence of transitional fossils hence why creationists deny the existence of transitional fossils despite the fact there are numerous examples of such fossils

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:03 am  

Big Graeme wrote:

And remind us what your church did to those who said otherwise...

And reply came there none. Archetypal kirkstaller avoidance technique.

The worrying thing is the lack of intellectual capacity to consider anything different from brainwashed prejudices and mantras.

Like the refusal to consider that, had kirkstaller lived in those days, he would have been one of the people lighting the bonfires, and the point being, he would have been spouting forth 100% exactly the same sort of "God told me it's true" bullcrap about the Earth/Sun system as he is in the 21st C. spouting about animals and evolution.

Of course, there are plenty of places still in the 21st C. where vocally criticising religious shibboleths - or even involuntarily infringing - can indeed still get you killed. This is what is scary - that if kirkstaller and we lived in a country where fundamentalist primitive religion was the law, people just like kirkstaller would be the religious police.

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:30 am  

Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer: How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years?

Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer: How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years?

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:51 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And reply came there none. Archetypal kirkstaller avoidance technique.

I thought the question was rhetorical, but here's my answer anyway.

'My church' didn't do anything of the sort. Don't blame me for the wrongdoings of the Roman Catholic religion.

Like the refusal to consider that, had kirkstaller lived in those days, he would have been one of the people lighting the bonfires

I don't think so, thou shall not murder is pretty unequivocal.

and the point being, he would have been spouting forth 100% exactly the same sort of "God told me it's true" bullcrap about the Earth/Sun system as he is in the 21st C. spouting about animals and evolution.

Shoulda woulda coulda. You can't say with any degree of accuracy what I would have done. That's just idle speculation.

Of course, there are plenty of places still in the 21st C. where vocally criticising religious shibboleths - or even involuntarily infringing - can indeed still get you killed. This is what is scary - that if kirkstaller and we lived in a country where fundamentalist primitive religion was the law, people just like kirkstaller would be the religious police.

I am no Pharisee.

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:52 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer: How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years? Nothing there which contradicts Genesis.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer: How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years? Nothing there which contradicts Genesis.

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:16 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer: How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years? Creationists usually respond to examples of evolution being observed by claiming that new species are still the same "kind" of animal. The problem for creationists is that they are unable to provide a scientific definition of the term "kind".

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer: How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years? Creationists usually respond to examples of evolution being observed by claiming that new species are still the same "kind" of animal. The problem for creationists is that they are unable to provide a scientific definition of the term "kind".

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:59 pm  

I'm still confused as to why 'God' turned herbivorous dinosaurs into carnivorous dinosaurs because a human (whether you accept humans are apes or not) ate an apple. Perhaps kirkstaller could explain it to me.

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:14 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

Nothing there which contradicts Genesis.

Let me get this straight.
Your view is that there's nothing in the evolution of new species that contradicts Genesis.
Your view is that man didn't evolve to become man, he was created as man by god.

So, what is your view about myriad of mutations of human genetic code that have occurred over ten of thousands of years, do they not tell us that man has evolved as he has migrated around the globe?
I'm guessing that you do accept that man has evolved, but that it is your view that whilst man has evolved, he has only evolved from the originally-god-created form of man.

Where do other forms such as australopithicus and neanderthal man fit into your view?
Were they men or animals?