What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
>>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
I stopped reading after the first sentence. This is the creation scientist's argument that we didn't develop from monkeys. The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans. Care to try again?
What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
Now you're going off from what we were discussing. Believe me, my faith does not drive my science. Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith? Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works. The only supernatural is what's in Genesis. There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like. To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today? Atheism is a religion.
Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution. Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so. The only thing observable is natural selection.
Instead, today the lie has taken over. Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past. Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories. This was not so before the 1850s. So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more. The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs. Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science. People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated. Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists. Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism. See my list of famous scientists of the past below. They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today. There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
Creation scientists - creation.com
A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
I'd have to disagree. The majority did just fine as shown in my link. Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon. Why complain about what happened in the past when it's what happened today with secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science? They won't peer-review anything to do with the Bible. In fact, it's so bad that creation scientists had to go in the closet to keep their jobs. They just mouth the BS lines of evolution. Creation scientists have to do their own peer-review. Furthermore, why are you re-writing history to fit your own wrong worldview?
The Bible shows that the earth is not flat. I can give you the verses if you want. Do you know how to simply show that the earth is not flat using science? I do. Are you a flat earther ha ha? You're also going by stereotypes stating there are people who still believe in geocentricity.
As for the rest, I'll let you pontificate on your soapbox. I don't want to go off topic.
>>Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.<<
I think the faithful here have been showing evidence of creation such as only life begats life. The evos can't explain how single-cells creatures became multicells ones nor how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction. Evos cannot create a blade of grass. God only allowed us to manipulate at the molecular level.
What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
>>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
I stopped reading after the first sentence. This is the creation scientist's argument that we didn't develop from monkeys. The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans. Care to try again?
What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
Now you're going off from what we were discussing. Believe me, my faith does not drive my science. Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith? Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works. The only supernatural is what's in Genesis. There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like. To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today? Atheism is a religion.
Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution. Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so. The only thing observable is natural selection.
Instead, today the lie has taken over. Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past. Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories. This was not so before the 1850s. So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more. The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs. Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science. People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated. Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists. Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism. See my list of famous scientists of the past below. They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today. There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
Creation scientists - creation.com
A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
I'd have to disagree. The majority did just fine as shown in my link. Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon. Why complain about what happened in the past when it's what happened today with secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science? They won't peer-review anything to do with the Bible. In fact, it's so bad that creation scientists had to go in the closet to keep their jobs. They just mouth the BS lines of evolution. Creation scientists have to do their own peer-review. Furthermore, why are you re-writing history to fit your own wrong worldview?
The Bible shows that the earth is not flat. I can give you the verses if you want. Do you know how to simply show that the earth is not flat using science? I do. Are you a flat earther ha ha? You're also going by stereotypes stating there are people who still believe in geocentricity.
As for the rest, I'll let you pontificate on your soapbox. I don't want to go off topic.
>>Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.<<
I think the faithful here have been showing evidence of creation such as only life begats life. The evos can't explain how single-cells creatures became multicells ones nor how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction. Evos cannot create a blade of grass. God only allowed us to manipulate at the molecular level.
In the legitimate science world, scientists publish their work in peer reviewed journals where other scientists have an opportunity to study the data, perform their own tests and compare data to arrive at conclusions. You're claiming that "secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science? " I would suggest that it is creationists who have abandoned the discipmine of the scientific method and are simply pressing a religious agenda.
In the world of the creation ministries, they're not just biased, they're biased in extremis and their every effort is couched in terms of pressing a predefined agenda. It's dishonest and contrived. Those at the various Christian creationist ministries don't see it as important whether they present facts or not. If they choose to further opinions and press a religious agenda, that's their choosing. However, don't make the mistake that the opinions of religious fundamentalists are not fostered under the umbrella of a bias and a bigotry firmly in place. The prejudices and preconceptions have earned "creation science" only ridicule and condemnation from the relevant science community. That is probably the greatest indictment against the creation ministries.
"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
- Henry Morris
President, Institute for Creation Research
