To all my dear theists
Test you faith by watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn_EPW17Fdc
(It's actually about the topic of this thread
| Just click play | |
Hey Michael, I recall pretty clearly that you said you were leaving this thread a week or so ago. Of course I knew from long experience with you that that promise was no more credible than any of the previous broken ones littering your history. Just out of curiosity, did I recently say something specific that set you off? Was it my suggestion that you might have been praying to a Mother in Heaven? Some unresolved childhood issues between you and you mom coming to the fore here?
To all my dear theists
Test you faith by watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn_EPW17Fdc
(It's actually about the topic of this thread
(That little gem, not including my added highlighting, is from http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/07/how-giraffes-became-winners-by-a-neck/. Boy, it's a good thing we get to have new editions of our textbooks, because it sure seems like the old ones aren't very trustworthy. And I'm completely bewildered about how all that evolution is going to fit into the 8000 years or so between the the sivatherium and the giraffe.
Well spotted but I think you are making a typical creationist type misconception.Very interesting! I especially liked the part about giraffoidea in part 3 that shows giraffe evolution.
Here's what one sample looked like, supposedly:
Funny that I happened to find the same picture of one that was used in the video. Small world, I guess.
It's called a Sivatherium, and here's what I found out about it, from wikiwand.com. "It may have become extinct as recently as 8,000 years ago, as depictions that greatly resemble it are known from ancient rock paintings in the Sahara desert." (my highlighting) That's pretty amazing! Especially as the author of the videos was making fun of creationists for thinking that evolution would have to happen so rapidly to get all of the animals we have today from a few kinds that were on the ark, and now he uses this one that must have evolved so quickly--far more quickly than the current theory of evolution allows for--as a purported giraffe ancestor. Rather, most evolutionists think the longer necked giraffes have been around for some 8 to 10 million years. Whew! That's much better than having to side with the delusional creationists. But it makes short work of the intention of the video to dispel creationist propaganda by replacing it with evolutionist propaganda.
(That little gem, not including my added highlighting, is from http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/07/how-giraffes-became-winners-by-a-neck/. Boy, it's a good thing we get to have new editions of our textbooks, because it sure seems like the old ones aren't very trustworthy. And I'm completely bewildered about how all that evolution is going to fit into the 8000 years or so between the the sivatherium and the giraffe.
By the way, here's another picture of the same creature from the same wikiwand website. It's labelled "Outdated, moose-like restoration" on the website for pretty obvious reasons.
My point (well, one of my points
) was that it was not "clearly in many respects giraffe-like in appearance" (my embolding), else it wouldn't have been thought to look like this:
To cut to the chase my understanding is that sivatherium was reckoned to have been around since at least the early Pleistocene (2.5 million years ago).Was Noah's supposed flood before or after his actual flood?
Your question, if I understand it literally, is, "Assuming the biblical account, how could a giraffe-like sivatherium become extinct before Noah's flood?" Are you suggesting that according to the bible, animals never became extinct before the flood? I don't think the bible addresses that question. My guess is that in the 1500 or so years between creation and flood that relatively few animals went extinct. But that's purely a guess.
Maybe your question is really, "Since the animal became extinct 8000 years ago, and the earth (according to creationists) was really only created 6000 years ago, and these are obviously contradictory results, how can creationists continue to believe such ridiculous stuff?" That's pretty easy: The sivatherium extinction (not to mention it's actual existence) has been misdated.
But I still get the feeling I haven't gotten to the root of your question. Maybe you could respond with what your real problem is with creationists. I can't guarantee I'll have an answer, but let's have the conversation at least.
And here's a question for you: "How do you know when an animal went extinct?"
Ok
When you say "such a time ever existed", you can mean one of a few possibilities, which could include, but may not be limited to, the following:
YECs probably don't always have the best reasons for rejecting scientific conclusions (I don't think "evidence" is scientific--it's just evidence). But it's better to reject scientists' conclusions than to reject evidence, don't you think? For instance, the sivatherium is believed to have been around during man's existence partly because rock art in the Sahara depicts them. The other part is that sivatherium "fossils" have been found, some with rather fresh, non-fossilized, material.
So, if the sivatherium's timeframe evidence includes man's art (and I should be able to add literature and history, if such existed), why is it that you would be willing to completely disregard evidence from a different source of man's art/history/literature? Is this a particular bias you have against the book of Genesis? Is this bias stronger than anything you might feel toward other books?
Ok
When you say "such a time ever existed", you can mean one of a few possibilities, which could include, but may not be limited to, the following:
YECs probably don't always have the best reasons for rejecting scientific conclusions (I don't think "evidence" is scientific--it's just evidence). But it's better to reject scientists' conclusions than to reject evidence, don't you think? For instance, the sivatherium is believed to have been around during man's existence partly because rock art in the Sahara depicts them. The other part is that sivatherium "fossils" have been found, some with rather fresh, non-fossilized, material.
So, if the sivatherium's timeframe evidence includes man's art (and I should be able to add literature and history, if such existed), why is it that you would be willing to completely disregard evidence from a different source of man's art/history/literature? Is this a particular bias you have against the book of Genesis? Is this bias stronger than anything you might feel toward other books?
I don't see how defining a different early Pleistocene from the scientific one would be particularly helpful?
If you are going to wave a literally interpreted Genesis at me to trump anything I say whatever science may conclude then yes of course there is nothing left to talk about.
I'm not sure you are right about the last part. I know about the T-Rex bone with supposedly soft tissue but even that isn't entirely true since the bone had to be cut open and the remains of blood vessels were identified as preserved by the iron in the blood apparently. "Fresh Meat" is only a creationist creation imo, but do cite any evidence that I may be unaware of.
If you want to cite your claimed scientific dispute then I'll take a look but to my knowledge there is no real dispute unless engineered by creationist websites perhaps.
I really don't see how Genesis is somehow self-evidenced while I don't know of any particular contention with animals depicted in ancient cave art so please do enlighten me on my supposed bias. Ancient men painting what they saw around them did not require any miraculous events to take place, they appear to be simple observations of daily life which I have not been asked to suspend my belief in the natural world, so why would I doubt?
