Thread: How does a creationist resolve this discrepancy

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.

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

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 stonedape

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

Beautifully phrased.

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?

"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.

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.

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 Xei

10. a brain having a well developed cerebellum with posterior lobe and a Calcarine fissure;

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

Actually, 10 is true. The cerebellum is mostly in charge of precision motor control and comprehension of language. The latter is a bit questionable, but he does display mastery of a keyboard.

EDIT:

That had already been addressed by Mario.

He has me on ignore. It's apparently easier to debate when you pretend one of your opponents doesn't exist.

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!

An error in what? The grammar? Surely you see the absurdity of the idea. For, how can one establish a grammar, without first predicating the thoughts which naturally govern that grammar? Perhaps you should try to sell your own shadow to your mind -- tell me if that works. Plato would have locked you away with Freud and all the other heretics and loonies.

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...

Quit bickering like children. It's getting rather tiresome.

I don't know why god couldn't create evolution. It is a perfectly running system. It might be the best way to create life, to let it evolve.
I wouldn't call myself a creationist, but I definitely think that Nature is creative. If we want to go all Biblical, I absolutely don't take the Bible literally, and I think that it was written by politicians, preists, and a few Divinely inspired prophets who weren't Scientists, but had visionary experiences which they wrote in metaphor.
I believe that the spark of life in all living beings and in the center of every particle is the creative force that some people name God as an anthropomorphized concept, but that leaves them feeling separate from it, as if God is its own being who has desires apart from our desires. the point is that the creative principle creates by becoming what it creates. You and me and the dinosaurs all are conscious living things (the dinosaurs lived in a different time, they died out) that desire happiness. And we are evolving towards happiness. On this journey, we are also discovering what happiness is. Dinosaurs were happy being big and savage and eating a lot, but our happiness is also more evolved and much more complex. It isn't that God made a mistake, because the concept of God has quite a few problems, but it is that we (as living feeling beings) have outgrown our base mentality as terrible lizards. For most animals happiness is just surviving, so survival of the fittest has been the compass for evolution. But humans are different, we can survive, but we may not survive ourselves.
God doesn't create, God becomes, and not willfully, but quite naturally and unconsciously, until it discovers itself in its manifestations. Then, evolution can become conscious, rather than an unconscious force of nature. All beings of life on this planet are just as sacred as any other, and we are all interdependent, but humans have the potential to be the flowers of consciousness on this tree of life. The flowers are part of the tree and cannot exist without it. We are the nervous system of Nature, but we are in the midst of a schizophrenic nervous breakdown. If we don't discover what happiness is then we will die out just like the dinosaurs and either our descendants or those who come after us will get closer. Of course, there is no answer that when we arrive at we will stop evolving. But the search is part of what happiness is.
The part of God that is asleep is nature, and nature is the dreamer who becomes the dream with all its creatures. This part is in search of lucidity, or lucidity is its destiny, the direction evolution heads for. The part of God that is awake does not know or care what Nature is dreaming, but waits patiently for Nature to awaken. Nature is a dream unfolding in time, The Awakened One does not dream of time, it is already and always was and will be at one with Nature before she fell asleep and after she awakens (before the Big Bang and after the Big Crunch). It is this union that is the compass for evolution. In religious words this is called Grace. In Gnostic terms the part of God who is awake is the Father, the part that is asleep is Sophia (which means Goddess of Wisdom, but she fell asleep in matter) who the Son (Christ) is sent to awaken her to her true nature again. All these aspects are within us. It is a story of lucidity. But, just a story. Not fact. But the message is true, but not fact.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Quit bickering like children. It's getting rather tiresome.

Didn't you know better when asking this question? Or are you trying to teach people to be able to express their opinions without the need to argue about who is right? Good luck! This is what humans have to learn in order to survive: find happiness in different ideas and respecting those who share different opinions and different views. That, and make use of clean renewable energy and conquer greed.

What about respecting the opinions of those who don't want renewable energy?

You just got derped son.

As always, the line of tolerance is drawn when it affects others.