A weird kind of creature strode across the eastern African landscape from around 4 million to 3 million years ago. Known today by the scientific label Australopithecus afarensis, these ancient ancestors of people may have taken the battle of the sexes in a strange direction, for primates at any rate. True, no one can re-create with certainty the court and spark that led to sexual unions between early hominids. Nothing short of a time machine full of scientifically trained paparazzi could manage that trick.
What a touching display of blind faith in their fable of what happened in the long long ago in the by and by. These people state that this "Lucy" was the ancestor of humans. I have as much scientific basis for saying that Lucy was only the ancestor of later generations of Lucys and was only the descendant of earlier generations of Lucys. In fact considering what we observe in the here and now, I think I have more scientific basis because all we observe in the here and now is creatures reproducing their own kind as the Bible states.
But the article stumbled on one bit of truth, the need of a time machine to prove these things. I wish those indroctinated in the Darwinist fairy tale would at least abandon the pretension that they have reason on their side and the believes in the Bible merely operate on "blind faith". When we're talking about something that supposedly happened so long ago and something that happened over such a long time ago we're talking faith at best. Faith being the acceptance of evidence of things unseen to give substance to things hoped for as described in the book of Hebrews.
Nothing in the world should be accepted blindly. As I Thessalonians 5:11 states:
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
The Bible itself demands and commends a logical test of its claims.(Acts 17:11) Why can't the typical Darwinist hold their faith to the same standard?
"The Bible itself demands and commends a logical test of its claims.(Acts 17:11) "
Well lets go! In Genesis there are two creation stories : J=Gen 2:4 to 2:23, P= Gen 1:1-2:3. In one, plants are created first, man last. In the other man is created first, woman last, after plants and animals. There are two flood stories, in J Noah takes seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean, but in P Noah takes one pair of each animal. J has Noah sending out three doves at the end, in P he sends out a raven. J=40 days and 40 nights, P has the flood lasting 370 days. This is all in the first book of Moses, Genesis. Why ?? Because J+P were written at different times by different people.
J+E were written in the early period, during the two split kingdoms Judah and Israel. P was written later as a alternative prior to the Babylonian exile. Both had an oral origin mixed with the current religious beliefs of the writer.
I find the history of the Israelies very interesting. But this is not a biological science. It can never be. And creationists do not talk about the origin of their creation stories while claiming it is an alternative so creation is a smokescreen.
When I used the term observable, I meant a process operating in the here and now that can be seen operating in the here and now. I'm not talking of insects giving rise to generations later to pesticide-resistant insects or the such like. I'm talking about generations of insects eventually giving rise to generations of something else. The original article stated this: "
A weird kind of creature strode across the eastern African landscape from around 4 million to 3 million years ago. Known today by the scientific label Australopithecus afarensis, these ancient ancestors of people may have taken the battle of the sexes in a strange direction, for primates at any rate. True, no one can re-create with certainty the court and spark that led to sexual unions between early hominids. Nothing short of a time machine full of scientifically trained paparazzi could manage that trick."
There is a reason we don't observe change in organisms that is considered above the species level. That reason is the rate of change. I realize that most creationists require a rat to change into a horse within one generation but that does not and can not happen. The rate of change is never quick enough for us to directly observe unless we are the natural in natural selection.
Lest you believe this gives your contention validity, be aware that the evidence compiled by evolutionary scientists comes from a number of different co-verified sources, including disciplines such as geology, geophysics, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology and others. Through intelligence, logic, scientific methodology, hard work and the critical comments of peers, the evidence is correlated, analyzed, tested and verified. From this evidence, a talent humans have in abundance - the ability to extrapolate - , is used to give credence to the ToE. This is no different than any other field of scientific study.
"What a touching display of blind faith in their fable of what happened in the long long ago in the by and by. These people state that this "Lucy" was the ancestor of humans. I have as much scientific basis for saying that Lucy was only the ancestor of later generations of Lucys and was only the descendant of earlier generations of Lucys. In fact considering what we observe in the here and now, I think I have more scientific basis because all we observe in the here and now is creatures reproducing their own kind as the Bible states."
To take your statement down to a ridiculously extreme analogy just to make a point, what you are saying is that if you were to come across spore left by some animal, you could not definitively determine which species it came from because you were not a witness to the event. Remember that the point of the analogy is that not directly observing does not negate the validity of forensic analysis.
"But the article stumbled on one bit of truth, the need of a time machine to prove these things. I wish those indroctinated in the Darwinist fairy tale would at least abandon the pretension that they have reason on their side and the believes in the Bible merely operate on "blind faith". When we're talking about something that supposedly happened so long ago and something that happened over such a long time ago we're talking faith at best. Faith being the acceptance of evidence of things unseen to give substance to things hoped for as described in the book of Hebrews."
"Nothing in the world should be accepted blindly.
I agree with this as do all evolutionary scientists. The evidential basis for the ToE is an amalgam comprised from many other sciences and adheres to the scientific standard. The creationist bias is not based on logic but on the desire to prove their own beliefs correct. Their frequent claim of bias and faith in science, and it really is all science, not just evolutionary, is foundless and simply serves to redirect doubt from their own faith to what they consider the greatest threat.
"As I Thessalonians 5:11 states:" "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
"The Bible itself demands and commends a logical test of its claims.(Acts 17:11) Why can't the typical Darwinist hold their faith to the same standard?"