How were we created? I'd like Creationist views. (Shed light on this Conpiracy).

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Whatever you are, therefore, you're not the stuff of which you're made.

Technically some molecules of your bones might have been there, but anyways..

Aye, physically/mentally/biologically I am not the same person.

I actually agree with Dennett, who is also a compatibilist. It's a bit of a fudge, I suppose, but I have more control over my behaviour than most organisms. So it's a sort of weak free will. All my actions pass through 'me', and the 'me' is the result of biology and experiences - all caused in some way and fully deterministic.

I agree that I can't see any place for the free will that most talk about. To suggest that random/non-deterministic events lead to free will appears strange. 'I' would not really be in control in such a case. So not really free will either.

reply to post by iWork4NWO


Actually you're wrong. The calcium deposited in our bones are in it for the long hall. Amongst other things I am sure.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by melatonin

 

We are in agreement, well, somewhat. I think how we define the terms are off. We are compelled to do certain things *biology, experience, preference and so forth* but when where we exercise free will is when we act against those compellments. *is that even a word?*

It is the biggest problem in this area. But I hold to a sort of weak form of free will. I'm free in the sense that 'I' consciously make decisions and have some control of my actions. Not all. Much of our behaviour is driven by unconscious drives, but they are still a part of 'me', lol.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]

Oh and just to go on a brief Titanic tangent. Sorry in advance OP.
Ismay was blamed, largely because he survived and was viewed a coward and convient scapegoat. That, and Smith was percieved as "heroicly" going down with the ship, despite the fact his ordering more steam is what proved to be a big part of the who fatal equation. Despite him knowing bettter.

The popular press expected men to die like heroes in 1912. After all Captain Smith had done just that, or had he? In a strange quirk of history the man directly responsible for the loss of Titanic is remembered as a hero, whilst the man who tried to save lives is labelled a coward.

Smith failed the passengers and crew of Titanic. He failed to heed ice warnings, did not slow his ship when ice was reported directly in his path and allowed lifeboats to leave the sinking ship partially filled, unnecessarily adding at least 500 names to the list of the dead.

But what But what organisation or individual was ultimately to blame? The British government's Board of Trade allowed Titanic to sail with insufficient lifeboat accommodation. The government simply had not kept abreast of advances in marine engineering and based all life-saving regulations on ships up to 10,000 grt (gross registered tons) which were required to carry 16 lifeboats. Titanic was 46,329 grt. A ship designed to accommodate 3,511 passengers and crew was only required to provide lifeboat accommodation for 962. In fact, White Star provided her with four extra collapsible boats, increasing capacity to 1,178.

If Smith had not failed in his duty, all these lifeboats could have been loaded to their stated capacity in time, or even with many more, for the numbers reflected shipyard workers, not women and children. In the flat calm conditions that night, the first boat to leave Titanic's side, with a capacity of 40, contained just 12 people.

Titanic, famous for that terrible disaster, today stands as a memorial to mankind's over-confidence in technology and a reminder of how weak we are compared with the forces of nature. But Titanic should also stand as a reminder of an era when millions of emigrants made the voyage across the Atlantic seeking a new life, in a new world - a memorial to a unique event in history.

SOURCE:www.bbc.co.uk...



edit: forgot to cite source, fixed that

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by iWork4NWO

 

Actually you're wrong. The calcium deposited in our bones are in it for the long hall. Amongst other things I am sure.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

You're so eager to disagree with me that you fail to read what I write. Nice going!

reply to post by iWork4NWO


Oh how cute, you learned how to edit. Good for you. That line was not there when I responded. I find we have exhausted this conversation if your going to start pulling tricks like that out of your butt. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by iWork4NWO

 

Oh how cute, you learned how to edit. Good for you. That line was not there when I responded. I find we have exhausted this conversation if your going to start pulling tricks like that out of your butt. Have a nice day.

It was there from the very beginning. Melatonin quoted it before you replied. That's hard evidence. Anyways I really don't care.

edit. I even remember why I edited. At first the last line was

"Technically some molecules of your bones might have been there, but anyways.."

I then changed it to:

"Technically speaking some molecules of your bones might have been there, but anyways.."

But yeah..

[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

The Tanakh clearly supports evolution...

Genesis 5:
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

The way I view it is that as they evolved, woman, being the one to give birth, had more "free" time as her needs were being met by the male. Thus, she developed her thought process as she nurtured her child.. this was the fruit she shared with the man. Thus the name given to her, "Eve" meaning "mother of all living".. living = awareness.

Then Isaiah is the most supportive of the creation through evolution and the fact that He is STILL creating!!

Isaiah 40:
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Isaiah 42:
9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

Isaiah 43:
18 Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old.

19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.

Isaiah 44:
7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 48:
6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.

7 They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.


These are only a FEW of the examples... Isaiah also talks about God sitting on the circle of the earth... this means the Creator and his creation process are found when one learns to see equally both through the right side of the brain and the left.. emotions coupled with the Nature of Reason in perfect harmony... too much of one side is to be off balance and not *see* His work being created even now.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by justamomma]

reply to post by B.A.C.


If you mean we have an adaptive response mechanism built into our physical make up, including our DNA, then I agree we can evolve to some degree to live in different enviroments and adapt to some degree. Eskimos have adapted to the Artic life.

Take an Eskimo and plant him in 120 degree Arizona and he's going to have some serious problems, but he can adapt to the climate over a period of time.

Personally, I don't consider adaptive response as evolution in the sense that evolutionists use the term.

I added you as a friend

Originally posted by Daniem
Id like to know how creationists explain transitional fossils if evolution is wrong. The transitional fossils that we have found indicates that transitional species are actually extremely common. ...

Actually, there are only 4 or 5 "transitional species". And even then, it is controversial if they are actually transitional or if they are like the platypus.

Darwin said (back when the fossil record was incomplete) that we should find almost nothing BUT transitional species if his theory were true. That's not what we find. We find fully formed species, with no "transitions".

We find no birds with half-wings. We find birds with fully formed wings, EVEN IF THEY AREN'T USED FOR FLYING. (Ostrich, penguins, etc.). We find no vertebrate animals with a single eye, or ear. We find no vertebrate animals with 6 legs, or 5 legs, or 3 legs. All vertebrate animals seem to have 4 appendages, and almost all have a tail. Why not two tails? Or no tails? Why not 4 ears? Or 3? Or ears at the back of their body? Why not several noses? Why not several hearts? Or several livers?

Instead, we see all animals have two lungs, two kidneys, one liver, one heart, one brain. Granted, some animals have additional lobes on their lungs, but they still have two lungs.

Are you telling me that Zebras with additional eyes on their butts wouldn't be better adapted to avoid predators than zebras with just two eyes? The same goes with ears.

We KNOW certain creatures function just fine with 6 legs, or 8 legs, or many more. No one finds it odd that vertebrate creates always have 2 or 4 legs? And even if they only have 2 legs, they always have a total of 4 appendages? That doesn't strike anyone else as a very, very big "coincidence"?

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Actually, there are only 4 or 5 "transitional species". And even then, it is controversial if they are actually transitional or if they are like the platypus.

Actually all species on Earth are transitional species.

Darwin said (back when the fossil record was incomplete) that we should find almost nothing BUT transitional species if his theory were true. That's not what we find. We find fully formed species, with no "transitions".

Actual words? Anyways doesn't matter. Darwin didn't know about all that extinction stuff..

We find no birds with half-wings. We find birds with fully formed wings, EVEN IF THEY AREN'T USED FOR FLYING. (Ostrich, penguins, etc.).
We find no vertebrate animals with a single eye, or ear. We find no vertebrate animals with 6 legs, or 5 legs, or 3 legs. All vertebrate animals seem to have 4 appendages, and almost all have a tail. Why not two tails? Or no tails? Why not 4 ears? Or 3? Or ears at the back of their body? Why not several noses? Why not several hearts? Or several livers?
Instead, we see all animals have two lungs, two kidneys, one liver, one heart, one brain. Granted, some animals have additional lobes on their lungs, but they still have two lungs.

Because of HOX-genes

Oh and Eisenia foetida has like 5 hearts. It's an animal too is it not? How many compartments does a cow's stomache have? Anyways all this just goes to show that you don't know your biology. BTW in some animals (Tuataras for example) the pineal gland still functions as an eye. 3rd eye

[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

reply to post by iWork4NWO

Bravo! A star for your post.

I notice the only creationist attempts to answer the OP question so far have been quotes from scripture. Par for the course.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

If you mean we have an adaptive response mechanism built into our physical make up, including our DNA, then I agree we can evolve to some degree to live in different enviroments and adapt to some degree. Eskimos have adapted to the Artic life.

Take an Eskimo and plant him in 120 degree Arizona and he's going to have some serious problems, but he can adapt to the climate over a period of time.

Personally, I don't consider adaptive response as evolution in the sense that evolutionists use the term.

I added you as a friend

Yup, that is exactly the way I see Evolution. More of an adaptation than an actual evolving.

Thanks!

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
...Oh and Eisenia foetida has like 5 hearts. It's an animal too is it not?

Funny, I wasn't aware that worms had backbones. That's what "vertebrate" means, you know.

How many compartments does a cow's stomache have?

Did you see me list the stomach as one of the included organs? Besides that, how many stomach's does a cow have?

Anyways all this just goes to show that you don't know your biology.

You apparently do not know what a vertebrate is, and you want to say that *I* don't know biology?

BTW in some animals (Tuataras for example) the pineal gland still functions as an eye. 3rd eye

From www.kcc.org.nz... which is a fact sheet about the tuataras.

What’s this about a ‘third eye’ ??

The ‘third eye’ is visible under young tuatara’s skin and becomes covered with scales after four to six months. The ‘third eye’ soaks up UV (ultra violet) rays in the first few months of the tuatara’s life. The young tuatara get Vitamin D from the UV rays, which helps them grow into healthy adult tuatara.

Ummm.... an organ to manufacture Vitamin D doesn't sound like an "eye" to me. It sounds suspiciously like.... an organ to manufacture Vitamin D.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Funny, I wasn't aware that worms had backbones. That's what "vertebrate" means, you know.

Your words:

"Instead, we see all animals have two lungs, two kidneys, one liver, one heart, one brain. Granted, some animals have additional lobes on their lungs, but they still have two lungs."

I know what you mean, but it was your mistake, not mine

Did you see me list the stomach as one of the included organs? Besides that, how many stomach's does a cow have?

That's the spirit. I think the answer is "four". Or like 1 stomache, but in 4 compartments. In my native language we'd call those digestive compartments stomaches(sp?). Isn't digestive compartment what a stomach is?

You apparently do not know what a vertebrate is, and you want to say that *I* don't know biology?

I believe this has already been addressed.

From www.kcc.org.nz... which is a fact sheet about the tuataras.

What’s this about a ‘third eye’ ??

The ‘third eye’ is visible under young tuatara’s skin and becomes covered with scales after four to six months. The ‘third eye’ soaks up UV (ultra violet) rays in the first few months of the tuatara’s life. The young tuatara get Vitamin D from the UV rays, which helps them grow into healthy adult tuatara.

Ummm.... an organ to manufacture Vitamin D doesn't sound like an "eye" to me. It sounds suspiciously like.... an organ to manufacture Vitamin D.

From wikipedia:

The tuatara has a third eye on the top of its head called the parietal eye. It has its own lens, cornea, retina with rod-like structures and degenerated nerve connection to the brain, suggesting it evolved from a real eye. The parietal eye is only visible in hatchlings, which have a translucent patch at the top centre of the skull. After four to six months it becomes covered with opaque scales and pigment. Its purpose is unknown, but it may be useful in absorbing ultraviolet rays to manufacture vitamin D, as well as to determine light/dark cycles, and help with thermoregulation. Of all extant tetrapods, the parietal eye is most pronounced in the tuatara. The parietal eye is part of the pineal complex, another part of which is the pineal gland, which in tuatara secretes melatonin at night. It has been shown that some salamanders use their pineal body to perceive polarised light, and thus determine the position of the sun, even under cloud cover, aiding navigation.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

reply to post by iWork4NWO


I have a verifiable observable fact about the Parietal Eye.

Whenever I approach my Iguana from behind and my shadow falls upon his Parietal Eye he turns around. Not before my shadow hits that eye does he do this.

Could it also have something to do with Vitamin D? Sure. Your own article says it is unknown though. Read it.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Whoa, really? Who got the Nobel prize for it? How did they prove the existence of free will?

[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Everytime we make a choice, Coke or Pepsi we are demonstrating free will. This seems both verifiable and observable to me at least.


[edit on 13-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Actually, there are only 4 or 5 "transitional species". And even then, it is controversial if they are actually transitional or if they are like the platypus.

Darwin said (back when the fossil record was incomplete) that we should find almost nothing BUT transitional species if his theory were true. That's not what we find. We find fully formed species, with no "transitions".

We find no birds with half-wings. We find birds with fully formed wings, EVEN IF THEY AREN'T USED FOR FLYING. (Ostrich, penguins, etc.). We find no vertebrate animals with a single eye, or ear. We find no vertebrate animals with 6 legs, or 5 legs, or 3 legs. All vertebrate animals seem to have 4 appendages, and almost all have a tail. Why not two tails? Or no tails? Why not 4 ears? Or 3? Or ears at the back of their body? Why not several noses? Why not several hearts? Or several livers?

Instead, we see all animals have two lungs, two kidneys, one liver, one heart, one brain. Granted, some animals have additional lobes on their lungs, but they still have two lungs.

Are you telling me that Zebras with additional eyes on their butts wouldn't be better adapted to avoid predators than zebras with just two eyes? The same goes with ears.

We KNOW certain creatures function just fine with 6 legs, or 8 legs, or many more. No one finds it odd that vertebrate creates always have 2 or 4 legs? And even if they only have 2 legs, they always have a total of 4 appendages? That doesn't strike anyone else as a very, very big "coincidence"?

Not only should we find them in the fossil record, they should be roaming all over the earth. I find this puzzling if the theory is true.


[edit on 13-3-2009 by B.A.C.]