Thread: How does a creationist resolve this discrepancy

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You are in effect asking how do those who cannot reason -- reason.

I realize the original post was definitely not worded in a way conducive to the discussion of such things. Which is why I have been answering my own question. I don't really expect christians to bother answering the question since the original post was very sardonic in nature. Oh well. It's still interesting to research this stuff for myself and actually understand what these people belief.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I realize the original post was definitely not worded in a way conducive to the discussion of such things. Which is why I have been answering my own question. I don't really expect christians to bother answering the question since the original post was very sardonic in nature. Oh well. It's still interesting to research this stuff for myself and actually understand what these people belief.

But don't you see if you attempt to define "belief" in accordance with the truth of things, they will simply define it to mean ignorance. What I am getting at, is that if you really want to change the world, you have to work on changing thought in accordance with the truth of things --- from the ground up. From first principles. And, when you do that, this hord of scientist you think are behind you, suddenly have moved into the religious class.

And, sadly, you will find that the root problem is simply biological--they can never change. All you can do is help add evolutionary stress to make a change that will come centuries long after you once lived and cared. To really care for a thing means to understand how to make your care long outlive your awareness of it.

When you get down to the foundation, you will understand all depends on if a persons words comply with the truth of things, no matter if they claim to be creationists or not, it all comes down to "In the beginning was the Word." Psycholinguistics.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You are in effect asking how do those who cannot reason -- reason. But I think, before one casts that stone, they should themselves know the foundation of reason, and simply attempt to teach that. One does not create a mason by dropping a load of bricks on them, but by teaching them how to stack and morter them.

It was written that the poor shall always be with us--the poverty spoken of was not in material wealth, but in mind.

Scrpture was written in metaphor--not because it was stupid to do so, but for very specific reasons. The mastery of metaphor should be a prerequisite for anyone attempting to comprehend psychology.

Wow! Philosopher made a grammatical error, this is a once in a lifetime post!

It seems to me that a sound explanation of how we came to be in existence should not have to be explained away CREATIVELY.

Every time I hear a Bible-ist answer a question like this I never hear any line of thought process.
In this case the question was raised: How do you explain dinosaur bones if the world was made in seven days?
I'm not trying to pick on Ne-Yo. He gave one of the Christian answers to this question that I have heard before. It is the answer (and every other answer to this question that I have ever heard) that I am scrutinizing here, not Ne-Yo.

Instead of stating: There are dinosaur bones. There is THIS fact about those dinosaur bones that LEADS US TO BELIEVE THAT *THIS* IS THE CASE. *THIS* explains why the Bible states that the world was created in seven days.
Christians state: There are dinosaur bones. The Bible states that the world was created in seven days. *THIS* is the explanation that could possibly satisfy both of these factors.
The explanation that "Genesis Days" are different than our days satisfies both facts: ☺There are dinosaur bones, and ☺the world was created in seven "days". but it does not have any evidence, or supporting ideas to lead us to believe this, EXCEPT for the two facts that we started with: ☺There are dinosaur bones, and ☺the world was created in seven days.

In other words...
Just because you can think of an excuse does not mean it's a good one.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Because "God did it" isn't an answer.

Is there a possibility that a God exist and indeed did do it?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You mean early humans.

No, I said "bi-pedaled" primates I didn't mean anything else but what I stated.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Point 1, dinosaurs existed over 60 millions years before the homo genus was present. Even the oldest primates came only when dinosaurs were gone.

So how do you explain something like this?

Originally Posted by National Geographic News

New Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Coexisted.
Scientists have acquired new data supporting the idea that the last ancestor shared by all living primates walked with the dinosaurs more than 80 million years ago. The results came from a new technique used to reconstruct the course of animal evolution... scientists in the field of molecular genetics have compared subtle differences in the DNA of living primates. Using this method, geneticists have concluded that about 90 million years have elapsed since all living primates shared their last common ancestor.
Source - news.nationalgeographic.com

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Point 2, you insist on implying the theory of evolution is an "atheist thing", in spite of the fact that every scientist in the world accepts evolution regardless of their religion or lack of.

Not sure where you got this from but I accept evolution. I've stated this several times before. So you obviously do not pay much attention.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So how do you explain something like this?

Read: last common ancestor. Not last human-like creature. Probably a small, gopher-like animal, or perhaps an early lemur. Nothing that could have saddled a dinosaur and rode it.
Also:

"Of course, this is all speculation," Tavaré acknowledged. "We have not found any fossils in that bin yet."

Not sure where you got this from but I accept evolution. I've stated this several times before. So you obviously do not pay much attention.

Sure, you "accept" evolution. Just not human evolution. Cuz humans are obviously special. We HAD to be divinely created, even though nature evolved complex organ systems in other animals that are virtually identical to ours, all on its lonesome. Cuz if we weren't divinely created, one way or another, what would that mean? My, the very idea of a god that did not create us, or indeed, does not care for us, is kinda disquieting.

You may stop kidding yourself now.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Is there a possibility that a God exist and indeed did do it?

Sure. But you gotta have scientifically verifiable evidence for that god's existence before it even becomes a contender. Then you need evidence showing god plays an active role in the universe. Then you need evidence showing god played an active role regarding dinosaur fossils on this insignificant blue speck of dust. Scriptural shit and syllogisms aren't gonna cut it (in case you want to get all William Lane Craig on me).

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Is there a possibility that a God exist and indeed did do it?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Sure. But you gotta have scientifically verifiable evidence for that god's existence before it even becomes a contender.

Your answer in bold is all that I wanted to see. I didn't ask you anything about evidence, I only asked you about rather it's possible or not. You said "sure" and that's all I wanted to know. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Blueline

(in case you want to get all William Lane Craig on me).

And I had to google this guy. Never heard of him before.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Your answer in bold is all that I wanted to see. I didn't ask you anything about evidence, I only asked you about rather it's possible or not. You said "sure" and that's all I wanted to know. Thank you.

It's not like I haven't said it before.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It's not like I haven't said it before.

I know, just wanted to see you state it again.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Not sure where you got this from but I accept evolution. I've stated this several times before. So you obviously do not pay much attention.

What I remember is you stating many times that you don't believe evolution can be responsible for the origin of new species, that you believe in "micro-evolution", etc. And in your arguments against modern biology you do often go "atheists this" and "atheists that".

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

What I remember is you stating many times is that you don't believe evolution can be responsible for the origin of new species, that you believe in "micro-evolution", etc. And in your arguments against modern biology you do often go "atheists this" and "atheists that".

Well should also remember me stating that I do believe in evolution. If you didn't know then, now you know.

Also what about that second part of that post I left for you up there? How do you explain that?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well should also remember me stating that I do believe in evolution. If you didn't know then, now you know.

Also what about that second part of that post I left for you up there? How do you explain that?

That had already been addressed by Mario. But I don't see how that even matters. Regardless of when primates came into the picture, the homo genus, which is what you were talking about, is still 60 millions from the dinosaurs.

So you're saying that you changed your mind and accepted evolution as the origin of species?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

No, I said "bi-pedaled" primates I didn't mean anything else but what I stated.

You're a bipedal primate.

Why do you keep setting yourself up for failure, are you some kind of pain freak?

Wait let me guess, humans aren't the only primates so we are not primates...

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

So you're saying that you changed your mind and accepted evolution as the origin of species?

I accept evolution. Now regarding pseudo-science. No, I don't accept it. Want to discuss that further create a thread on it and I'll meet you there.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You're a bipedal primate.

Maybe you are but I'm not. Look, Spartiate if you want discuss the whole evolution of humans thing again and pick up where we left off from our last conversation then create a thread on it and I'll meet you there.

Originally Posted by Sparitate

Why do you keep setting yourself up for failure, are you some kind of pain freak?

and stop biting my words. At least be original, gheez...

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I accept evolution. Now regarding pseudo-science. No, I don't accept it. Want to discuss that further create a thread on it and I'll meet you there.

No thanks, I'm quite full of your prancing and dancing around the point like this, couldn't take another bite.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

No thanks, I'm quite full of your prancing and dancing around the point like this, couldn't take another bite.

And this my friend is called Hara hachi bu. You should practice this more often. Besides we've already discussed my position on evolution EXTENSIVELY in the other thread. You want to take a look at where I stand on evolution it's all there. Probably the reason why its seems I'm dancing around the your question, is because you all keep asking me the same question over and over and over again.

creationsists don't resolve discrepencies, they just believe around them.

Originally Posted by stonedape

creationsists don't resolve discrepencies, they just believe around them.

Beautifully phrased.

"the last ancestor shared by all living primates" =/= primates.

Basic stuff, Ne-Yo.

Originally Posted by Xei

"the last ancestor shared by all living primates" =/= primates.

Basic stuff, Ne-Yo.

Come on Xei *sigh* are we really going to go there? You want to call yourself a primate that's cool with me. I'm not even going to argue against that. If thinking of yourself as a primate makes you feel good, I'm happy for you.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Come on Xei *sigh* are we really going to go there? You want to call yourself a primate that's cool with me. I'm not even going to argue against that. If thinking of yourself as a primate makes you feel good, I'm happy for you.

I was not made from dirt.

Originally Posted by sloth

I was not made from dirt.

I don't recall asking you what you were made from :p..lol

However, while we are here. You made a statement saying that the answer I gave regarding the threads question was the same thing you heard from other Christians before. I'm just curious to know something. Why would you expect a different answer?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I don't recall asking you what you were made from :p..lol

However, while we are here. You made a statement saying that the answer I gave regarding the threads question was the same thing you heard from other Christians before. I'm just curious to know something. Why would you expect a different answer?

I don't. I expect Christians to give whatever answer satisfies both conditions, whether there is any evidence or not.
This is not the only answer I have received though. I have actually heard that Satan planted the dinosaur bones in order to instill doubt, that God planted them to test our faith (notice how the term changes there), and that there are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible.

I am aware that you did not ask me what I was made of, but it sounded like you had implied that evolutionists were primates, which I feel is a much better alternative to being made from dirt. Primates can be pretty smart. Plus they aren't dirt.

No, stop lying please. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with humans being primates, does it? There is nothing in my post relevant to that, so why are you pretending there is?

What I did say was a clarification of a basic biological concept, in fact something that even people with no biological knowledge would have any kind of problem with; namely that the common ancestor of a collection of species is not the same thing as that collection of species, or, necessarily, one of those species. Serious question: why do you try to debunk these things when you don't know the utmost basics of them? The standard (sane) path is to learn about something (so that you can assess it), and only then, if you find problems with what you read, discuss them. Why are you trying to disprove something when you don't know what it is? It is actually insane, no?

With respects to your strawman about humans being primates, please tell me which of the following traits you do not have:

1. retention of the collar bone in the pectoral girdle;
2. shoulder joints which allow high degrees of movement in all directions;
3. five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes;
4. nails on the fingers and toes (in most species);
5. a flat nail on the hallux (in all extant species);
6. sensitive tactile pads on the ends of the digits;
7. orbits encircled in bone;
8. a trend towards a reduced snout and flattened face, attributed to a reliance on vision at the expense of olfaction (most notably in haplorrhines, and less so in strepsirrhines);
9. a complex visual system with stereoscopic vision, high visual acuity and color vision;
10. a brain having a well developed cerebellum with posterior lobe and a Calcarine fissure;
11. a large brain in comparison to body size, especially in simians;
12. differentiation of an enlarged cerebral cortex;
13. reduced number of teeth compared to primitive mammals;
14. three kinds of teeth;
15. a well-developed cecum;
16. two pectoral mammary glands;
17. typically one young per pregnancy;
18. a pendulous penis and scrotal testes;
19. a long gestation and developmental period;
20. a trend towards holding the torso upright leading to bipedalism.

I'm going to take a stab at 10 and 11... 18 and 20 are also dubious. But please, you tell me.