Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

reply to post by stereologist

Thanks for admitting that your Tooth's Folly is a delusion.

I never said Target Food was a delusion, I said Tooths Folly was, what ever you think it is. You have never presented anything about your made up theory.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I never said Target Food was a delusion, I said Tooths Folly was, what ever you think it is. You have never presented anything about your made up theory.

Sorry, you are dead wrong. Tooth's Folly is a delusion and you admit it.

You have also admitted to lying in more than 1 thread. You are what you post.

reply to post by stereologist

Sorry, you are dead wrong. Tooth's Folly is a delusion and you admit it.

You have also admitted to lying in more than 1 thread. You are what you post.

I have no idea what Tooths folly is, you have never taken the time to explain your new theory.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Seeing how they are both stemming from fantasy throught, as far as I'm concearned they are.

Depends on what you mean by same thing. They are both from fantasy so in that sense, to me, they are.

I never said they are the same thing. They are however both from fantasy.

If you don't understand the difference between the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, then you most certainly do not "understand evolution perfectly fine", much less well enough to try and argue against it.

Exactly, that theory does nothing but try to overwrite the historical document that we have, which claims that each species was created by a creator.

You still seem to be laboring under the false impression that a hypothesis and a theory are the same thing in science, even though you acknowledged earlier that they are not. Is this simply poor wording on your part or a legitimate lack of understanding the difference between the two?

It wasn't a video on the internet, it was a private video through the church.

So you cannot provide a copy of the video, or a link to the video, or some kind of record that the video exists, or a source for where the rest of us can view a copy of the video, or the name of who produced the video, or the name of someone involved in the video… you cannot provide any evidence that the video exists outside of your imagination?

reply to post by itsthetooth


It's has been Tooth's Folly for dozens of posts in many threads. It's an appropriate name for a delusional fairy tale you claim you invented and have never provided any evidence and simply wince when it is shown to be dramatically wrong and self contradictory. That is what a folly is and you earned the title of Tooth's Folly for your idea. Aren't you proud of Tooth's Folly? Aren't you happy with it being an utter failure? You must be because you can't seem to stop showing off its ridiculousness.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Such things have been PROVEN to be Time Honored Stories written by Ancient Man as a means of both teaching a lesson as well as trying to explain in common terms what could not be explained back then by the Science of Genetics and Geology. We know that Humans in there various forms driven by Evolutionary change...have been around almost 5 Million Years as well as know that the Earth is Ancient in the Extreme at 4.5 to 4.9 Billion Years old. We also know that it is GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for only TWO PEOPLE to populate the Earth as only two people would not posses the needed Genetic Diversity to breed for more than 3 to 6 generations before Birth Defects and Sterility would cause the Human Race to die out.

Still again...all this does not disprove the possible existence of a GOD.

Split Infinity

If you extrapolate backward enough there comes a boundary point in evolution in which humans would have begun to exist. Which means there was a first human, second, etc.

Secondly, Genesis does teach that God created Adam, and then Eve, but it doesn't necessarily say that He stopped there. Genesis does center around Adam and Eve and states that they were the first two humans God created, but that doesn't mean others weren't created.

Thirdly, Adam and Eve could have been metaphors for the human species, as opposed to two individual and historic people.

Fourth, Genesis teaches that God created Adam, but it doesn't go into explicit detail as to how He did so.

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

If you extrapolate backward enough there comes a boundary point in evolution in which humans would have begun to exist. Which means there was a first human, second, etc.

Secondly, Genesis does teach that God created Adam, and then Eve, but it doesn't necessarily say that He stopped there. Genesis does center around Adam and Eve and states that they were the first two humans God created, but that doesn't mean others weren't created.

Thirdly, Adam and Eve could have been metaphors for the human species, as opposed to two individual and historic people.

Fourth, Genesis teaches that God created Adam, but it doesn't go into explicit detail as to how He did so.

1. In evolution there is not clear defining boundary where a first human exists. The changes are slow and all of the intermediates make for gray zones. This is especially true between reptiles and mammals where there are many species that cannot be assigned to one or the other group.
   
2. It is true that there are suggestions that there are other peoples.
   
3. Interpretation of the bible is essence of trying to get the bible to match up to reality.
   
4. I think the bible is rather specific about how humans are made. There are two creation myths in the bible. In the first creation myth humans are made AFTER animals are created. The exact means are not stated. In the second creation myth humans are made BEFORE animals. In that case Adam is made and then EVE is made from Adam's rib.
   

The bible never discusses the exact means by which star are formed or the Earth is formed or anything else although the "God said" phrase common in the first creation myth is certainly suggestive of an incantation. What is confusing in all of this is the fact that there are 2 distinct creation myths with different events in different orders.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Sleepwalk85

 

If you extrapolate backward enough there comes a boundary point in evolution in which humans would have begun to exist. Which means there was a first human, second, etc.

Secondly, Genesis does teach that God created Adam, and then Eve, but it doesn't necessarily say that He stopped there. Genesis does center around Adam and Eve and states that they were the first two humans God created, but that doesn't mean others weren't created.

Thirdly, Adam and Eve could have been metaphors for the human species, as opposed to two individual and historic people.

Fourth, Genesis teaches that God created Adam, but it doesn't go into explicit detail as to how He did so.

1. In evolution there is not clear defining boundary where a first human exists. The changes are slow and all of the intermediates make for gray zones. This is especially true between reptiles and mammals where there are many species that cannot be assigned to one or the other group.
   
2. It is true that there are suggestions that there are other peoples.
   
3. Interpretation of the bible is essence of trying to get the bible to match up to reality.
   
4. I think the bible is rather specific about how humans are made. There are two creation myths in the bible. In the first creation myth humans are made AFTER animals are created. The exact means are not stated. In the second creation myth humans are made BEFORE animals. In that case Adam is made and then EVE is made from Adam's rib.
   

The bible never discusses the exact means by which star are formed or the Earth is formed or anything else although the "God said" phrase common in the first creation myth is certainly suggestive of an incantation. What is confusing in all of this is the fact that there are 2 distinct creation myths with different events in different orders.

1. Whether or not the changes in evolution were slow is irrelevant. Eventually, a boundary point is crossed and humans began to exist, just like despite the fact that there are subtle and slow changes in a human zygote to a fetus, baby, child, teen, and adult, doesn't mean there aren't plateaus of development. Humans didn't always exist. They began to exist. Eventually, there came a point where a being was born possessing all the traits required to consider it homo sapien. When did it occur? That's a tough question and maybe the precise moment will never be known but obviously it happened because humans do indeed exist. Also, my information about extrapolating backward and arriving to "the original humans" or first human comes from a trained biologist. It's not an idea that I just made up. I'll see if I can find the source.

2. It would seem your interpretation of the Bible is in essence trying to discredit it in any way possible. Whatever it takes to undermine it. What I don't understand is why those who think it is a book of fairy tales would spend all their time on the Internet trying to discredit it as though their life depended on it.

3. There aren't two creation teachings in the Bible. There is one creation with two different ways of looking at it. The first is a more general view while the second is a more localized view.

4. The Bible isn't meant to be a science book. It is a book inspired by God and written by men to illustrate our relationship with God and the way by which we are reconciled with Him through the blood of Christ. To argue about whether or not Genesis refers to or accepts evolution is to miss the boat completely.

reply to post by stereologist

It's has been Tooth's Folly for dozens of posts in many threads. It's an appropriate name for a delusional fairy tale you claim you invented and have never provided any evidence and simply wince when it is shown to be dramatically wrong and self contradictory. That is what a folly is and you earned the title of Tooth's Folly for your idea. Aren't you proud of Tooth's Folly? Aren't you happy with it being an utter failure? You must be because you can't seem to stop showing off its ridiculousness.

It may have been Tooth's folly for dozens of posts according to YOU, but who are you? You have never produced any evidence for your aleged theory. Target Food is already back up by a plethora of evidence, and redundantly backed up with proof. You may claim it's wrong but I wasn't looking here for claims, I was looking for proof.

reply to post by iterationzero

If you don't understand the difference between the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, then you most certainly do not "understand evolution perfectly fine", much less well enough to try and argue against it.

I understand it well enough.

You still seem to be laboring under the false impression that a hypothesis and a theory are the same thing in science, even though you acknowledged earlier that they are not. Is this simply poor wording on your part or a legitimate lack of understanding the difference between the two?

Neither, it stems from the fact that parts of evolution is a hypothesis.

So you cannot provide a copy of the video, or a link to the video, or some kind of record that the video exists, or a source for where the rest of us can view a copy of the video, or the name of who produced the video, or the name of someone involved in the video… you cannot provide any evidence that the video exists outside of your imagination?

You mean outside of my memory, and no, not at this time.

So what have we learned in 12 pages of quibbling and quarreling? Do we have any answers yet? Or are we just providing the justification for the question originally posed? Because I think we can move on with that. I really do.

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

1. Whether or not the changes in evolution were slow is irrelevant. Eventually, a boundary point is crossed and humans began to exist, just like despite the fact that there are subtle and slow changes in a human zygote to a fetus, baby, child, teen, and adult, doesn't mean there aren't plateaus of development. Humans didn't always exist. They began to exist. Eventually, there came a point where a being was born possessing all the traits required to consider it homo sapien. When did it occur? That's a tough question and maybe the precise moment will never be known but obviously it happened because humans do indeed exist. Also, my information about extrapolating backward and arriving to "the original humans" or first human comes from a trained biologist. It's not an idea that I just made up. I'll see if I can find the source.

2. It would seem your interpretation of the Bible is in essence trying to discredit it in any way possible. Whatever it takes to undermine it. What I don't understand is why those who think it is a book of fairy tales would spend all their time on the Internet trying to discredit it as though their life depended on it.

3. There aren't two creation teachings in the Bible. There is one creation with two different ways of looking at it. The first is a more general view while the second is a more localized view.

4. The Bible isn't meant to be a science book. It is a book inspired by God and written by men to illustrate our relationship with God and the way by which we are reconciled with Him through the blood of Christ. To argue about whether or not Genesis refers to or accepts evolution is to miss the boat completely.

1. It may be simple to point differences between a population today and a population from a long time ago, but as the time is reduced the number of differences becomes smaller until there is great difficulty in discerning the difference. All I want to point out is that pointing to a group as the first humans is never going to be easy or clear.
   
2. You consider agreeing with you discrediting the bible?
   
3. The two creation myths are clearly different. In one Adam and Eve are made together and in the other they are made at two different times, Adam first. The order of creation is different as well. They are clearly different stories.
   
4. Clearly, the order of creation listed in the bible is not reflected by the world we see around us. I agree that the bible should not be used as a science book. The stories in it such as the flood or exodus did not happen. That does not mean that the lessons of the bible are any less important.
   

reply to post by itsthetooth

It may have been Tooth's folly for dozens of posts according to YOU, but who are you? You have never produced any evidence for your aleged theory. Target Food is already back up by a plethora of evidence, and redundantly backed up with proof. You may claim it's wrong but I wasn't looking here for claims, I was looking for proof.

Your folly called Tooth's Folly has been proved false hundreds of times. It is a joke with no merit. No supporting evidence has been provided, but overwhelming evidence against has been posted. No matter how many times you lie about your folly it will always be Tooth's Folly.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Sleepwalk85

 

The two creation myths are clearly different. In one Adam and Eve are made together and in the other they are made at two different times, Adam first. The order of creation is different as well. They are clearly different stories.

Most Biblical scholars (experts) disagree with you. And if most scientists disagreed with you on a scientific matter, then I'd tend to go with them as well.

Clearly, the order of creation listed in the bible is not reflected by the world we see around us.

Cite some examples. List some quotes.

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

Most Biblical scholars (experts) disagree with you. And if most scientists disagreed with you on a scientific matter, then I'd tend to go with them as well.

I don't believe that is correct. In fact, I believe that most Biblical scholars interpret Genesis as having two different creation stories. It tends to be fundamentalists that try to reconcile the stories into a single tale.

Cite some examples. List some quotes.

From the first myth we have
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Birds appear before creeping things. The fossil records disagrees with that order.

From the second creation myth we have
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Birds appear after man. The fossil record strongly disagrees with that order.

Thus neither of the 2 creation myths describes the world we see today.

reply to post by stereologist

Your folly called Tooth's Folly has been proved false hundreds of times. It is a joke with no merit. No supporting evidence has been provided, but overwhelming evidence against has been posted. No matter how many times you lie about your folly it will always be Tooth's Folly.

I don't know what your referring to as tooths folly, I have never seen anything about it.

Target Food is very real.
You have FAILED to produce a shred of evidence that proves why all units of a species go after the same food.
You have FAILED to produce a shred of evidence that proves animals experiment with food.
You have FAILED to produce a shred of evidence that proves Target Food to be false by any means.

Clearly you have failed

reply to post by itsthetooth

I don't know what your referring to as tooths folly, I have never seen anything about it.

Target Food is very real.
You have FAILED to produce a shred of evidence that proves why all units of a species go after the same food.
You have FAILED to produce a shred of evidence that proves animals experiment with food.
You have FAILED to produce a shred of evidence that proves Target Food to be false by any means.

Clearly you have failed

Your Tooth's Folly has been shredded countless times by many, many posters at ATS.
Overwhelming evidence has shown animals experiment with food regardless of abundance, not all animals of a specie eat the same food, and you have no idea what a specie is according to science.

Tooth's Folly is nothing more than your delusion.

reply to post by stereologist

Your Tooth's Folly has been shredded countless times by many, many posters at ATS.
Overwhelming evidence has shown animals experiment with food regardless of abundance, not all animals of a specie eat the same food, and you have no idea what a specie is according to science.

Tooth's Folly is nothing more than your delusion.

That is false, no one has ever provided evidence that Target Food is wrong. What species experiment with food? I notice how you never reply with that. All animals of a species DO eat the same food, and thats already been proven.

When I see people argue what god is or isnt, I think of a lonely ant living in a nuclear facility. Will the ant ever understand where he is, how its built, what it does and can or will he ever reproduce what he sees in the facility?

This is the state of man arguing about his surroundings. Face it, you're the ant.

Originally posted by stereologist
I don't believe that is correct.

That's great that you don't believe it is correct, but most Biblical scholars (experts) disagree with your uninformed reading of Genesis and claim that there are two separate and different creation stories.

In fact, I believe that most Biblical scholars interpret Genesis as having two different creation stories.

It's unfortunate that this discussion is being held over the Internet, because I'd ask you to name one credible Biblical scholar. I doubt you could. I'm guessing you got your information about Genesis having two separate and different creation stories from yourself or some other uninformed person on the Internet.

From the first myth we have
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Birds appear before creeping things. The fossil records disagrees with that order.

First, you're supposed to be supporting your idea that there are two separate and different creation stories in Genesis, not trying to show that men from the second millennium B.C. were unable to write an accurate science textbook.

From the second creation myth we have
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Birds appear after man. The fossil record strongly disagrees with that order.

How exactly are these two stories different? Of course, they're different in the sense that the focus is different, just like Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark focus on different parts of the life of Jesus. However, they all share a common core. The first Genesis story focuses on what was done in general, while the second is more personal. The main point of the beginning of Genesis is to let us know that God created everything.

Finally, Genesis isn't meant to be a science lecture. And why would you assume that men from the second millennium B.C. would know as much about science as the modern-day man?