Cavemen?

[john832]

You didn't have a clue who Stott is.

Frankly, my dear...

 

[JackH]

You have just made my point. If there had been the myriad of intermediate species that the THEORY demands to transition from some ancient ancestor to modern man, then there should be mountains of skeletons, mountains of bones, mountains of evidence.

Obviously you want something like the Feejee mermaid, which proved mermaids are real. The documentary Splash merely confirmed that mermaids are real.

You rest your case on the 6,000 years.

Where, exactly, do you get the 6,000 years?

You can't get it, credibly, from science. You can't get it, credibly, from genealogies in the Bible.

So where do you get it?

 

[JackH]

Frankly, my dear...

And therein you have the crux of the YEC mindbleep.

 

[john832]

Obviously you want something like the Feejee mermaid, which proved mermaids are real. The documentary Splash merely confirmed that mermaids are real.

You rest your case on the 6,000 years.

Where, exactly, do you get the 6,000 years?

You can't get it, credibly, from science. You can't get it, credibly, from genealogies in the Bible.

So where do you get it?

I am still waiting to see all this hard evidence for your theory.

 

[JesusLives]

There is no if, there have been those who have lived in caves...

Heb 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
Heb 11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

Hi John 832

This Blond knows people have lived in caves....as a matter of fact my nephew had a house out in Oregon that had a small cave in the basement equipped with it's own little door to the entrance but I don't believe that he would be called a Neanderthal for living there.....lol

 

[john832]

Hi John 832

This Blond knows people have lived in caves....as a matter of fact my nephew had a house out in Oregon that had a small cave in the basement equipped with it's own little door to the entrance but I don't believe that he would be called a Neanderthal for living there.....lol

I realize that. I was trying to make a point that "cavemen" were not primitive species that "evolved" into more intelligent species that lived in houses. Sorry, if my poor choice of words came across as a correction. I was adding to your point for the benefit of our evolutionary friends.

 

[JackH]

I am still waiting to see all this hard evidence for your theory.

Have you been to a museum lately?

I mean, besides Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky.

I would personally recommend one near me, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

If you are closer to the left coast, I'm sure Dr. Hurd can make some recommendations.

We get it, you are not satisfied with the number of transitional fossils. So, you do not accept common descent, although it is the best theoretical explanation that anybody has come up with.

Your answer is a world that is 6,000 years old.

So let's see your evidence.

 

[john832]

Have you been to a museum lately?

I mean, besides Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky.

I would personally recommend one near me, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

If you are closer to the left coast, I'm sure Dr. Hurd can make some recommendations.

We get it, you are not satisfied with the number of transitional fossils. So, you do not accept common descent, although it is the best theoretical explanation that anybody has come up with.

Your answer is a world that is 6,000 years old.

So let's see your evidence.

First of all, I have NEVER said the world is 6,000 years old. I have said that the present creation is 6,000 years old.

Secondly, I have been to the Carnegie Museum more than once.

I noticed something in my neighborhood yesterday that validates your theory, the houses look much the same. My initial conclusion was that they had similar characteristics because they were designed by the same architect but you have show me how wrong I was. They actually EVOLVED from each other, that is why they look similar.

 

[john832]

The problem most people run into is that they are considered uneducated and superstitious if they do not ACCEPT the evolutionary theory.

Many of our younger people have not heard both sides of the story. Try teaching Special Creation or Intelligent Design in the classroom today, you won't have a job very long.

The theory is so viable that it must be protected from scrutiny. The facts must be carefully arranged, some ignored and others skewed.

If all else fails, accuse a person who believes the Biblical account of being superstitious and ignorant.

 

[john832]

I keep asking where all the proof is, but the only thing I get is misdirection. If the theory is really fact, one would expect to see real hard evidence instead of animal knee caps purported to be human skulls.

 

[john832]

Real science is open to critical analysis, but don't do that with the theory of evolution. Wonder why?

 

[phil112]

Theologian John Stott in his commentary on the book of Romans, actually suggests that Adam was an existing hominid that God adopted in a special way, and out of Homo sapiens God implanted his image, and made Adam in his image by ensouling him, and creating in Adam not Homo sapiens but Homo divinus.......................

Stott also believed in women preachers and that eternal life exists only for those who are saved. You go ahead and believe reprobate teachers. Me, I'll stay with the engrafted word of God which is able to save my soul.

............................Where do you get the 6,000 years from? Exactly?

Since you also are a fan of Stott, it isn't surprising that you, like gshurd, don't believe the bible either. How old did Adam look when God made him? You think he was in diapers? No? Maybe he looked like an adult, a grown man? You think God's power is limited to just being able to do that with humans, not dirt?

I don't know how old the earth is, but to say it can't be 6000 years old is to say God can't do certain things. The point is, no one was here 6000 years ago. We have no way of knowing exactly how creation came about. But your god has limited power. I think I'll keep mine, to whom all things are possible.

 

[Straightshot]

All men are "cavemen" .... including the bone peddlers

6000 years of the "caveman"

But there is a difference of the spirits within

Those regenerated by the Creator can see the truth

.... the balance, what they want to see .... these are the dead men walking around on the earth .... nothing but dust in the wind

Kansas - Dust in the Wind - YouTube

 

[JackH]

Many of our younger people have not heard both sides of the story. Try teaching Special Creation or Intelligent Design in the classroom today, you won't have a job very long.

The Supreme Court and other federal courts determined that it's not science and can not be taught as such.

In fact, some rather nasty things were said about ICR on one decision in particular.

I'll be sure to dig that out for you when I have time.

 

[JackH]

First of all, I have NEVER said the world is 6,000 years old. I have said that the present creation is 6,000 years old.

And the "present creation" is what, exactly?

Have there been humans on earth for more than 6,000 years?

When did dinosaurs become extinct?

How old is the earth?

 

[JackH]

Stott also believed in women preachers

I'm rather fond of women preachers myself. Especially some who preach the truth naked 'er I mean the naked truth. Like humans have been born naked into this world a whole lot longer than 6,000 years.

Let me ask you a question:

You said on another thread recently that the difference between animals and humans is that animals do not have a soul.

Seems to me that conflicts with the Bible.

Is that what you believe, that animals do not have a soul?

 

[Stephen63]

Is it a sin to play with the trolls? I've heard the more we play with them, the more we look like them.

 

[JackH]

Is it a sin to play with the trolls? I've heard the more we play with them, the more we look like them.

And what is your definition of a troll?

Let me guess.

A person who does not agree with a 6,000-year-old world?

 

[john832]

The Supreme Court and other federal courts determined that it's not science and can not be taught as such.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines science as "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Evolution fits this?

In fact, some rather nasty things were said about ICR on one decision in particular.

I'll be sure to dig that out for you when I have time.

Oh, so you have a lot of confidence in these nine people do you? Here are some decisions by this vaunted group...

#5. A Business Can Kick You Out of Your House if It Wants to Build There

#4. Scientists Can Create Life (And Corporations Can Own It)

#3. You Can Imprison an Entire Race, if You Have a Good Reason

(I am ashamed to report that we did this to American citizens of Japanese descent in WWII)

#2. Mining Companies Can Go "Scorched Earth" on the Environment, if They Get Permission

#1. The Government Can Sterilize You in the Name of Eugenics

From The 5 Most Terrifying Supreme Court Decisions | Cracked.com

So, if your confidence is in this vaunted authority, you have my sympathies.

 

[john832]

And what is your definition of a troll?

Let me guess.

A person who does not agree with a 6,000-year-old world?

This works for me...

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[SUP][1][/SUP] by posting inflammatory,[SUP][2][/SUP] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[SUP][3][/SUP] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[SUP][4]"[/SUP]