dad2 Posted February 23, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2020 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: It really isn't that hard for those well-versed in human anatomy. I'm a college professor that has taught Human Anatomy and Physiology for over 15 years. That qualifies me as slightly above amateur compared to those that study human anatomy professionally, and even I can tell the difference. There are many experts much more qualified than I that attest to the difference in simple bone anatomy. No. It qualifies you for nothing. It means you both taught lies as well as imbibed/studied/memorized them. (since science does not know actual origins) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted February 23, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23, 2020 You are starting to write stuff that makes no sense. 16 minutes ago, dad2 said: Or that they are not as far as science goes. Exactly. There is zero scientific evidence that the fossils for hominids only came post-flood. 17 minutes ago, dad2 said: Therefore since they are not in the fossil record, what should that tell you? What is "they"? What isn't in the fossil record? Transitional hominids, other transitional animals, and plants are all in the fossil record. 24 minutes ago, dad2 said: No. It qualifies you for nothing. It means you both taught lies as well as imbibed/studied/memorized them. (since science does not know actual origins) You weren't talking about origins. You were talking about telling the difference between ape and human bones. To you, the fact that I can tell the difference between human and ape bones means I was taught lies? That's a really bizarre statement. 20 minutes ago, dad2 said: Nor much chance God actually told the truth about it then, in your books. OK. But one thing you do have faith in and certainty...TOE. Got it. There is a huge amount of difference between believing that Genesis should not be interpreted strictly literally and believing that God didn't tell the truth. God uses figurative language in several places in Genesis 1-3. There are sufficient reasons to consider figurative language regarding the creation week and the creation of Adam and Eve, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted February 24, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2020 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: Quote You are starting to write stuff that makes no sense. Exactly. There is zero scientific evidence that the fossils for hominids only came post-flood. No scientific evidence that they were pre flood either. So? Quote What is "they"? What isn't in the fossil record? Adam and Eve and Noah and Seth are not in the record. No man is in the record. Most animals are not in the (early) fossil record either. Quote Transitional hominids, other transitional animals, and plants are all in the fossil record. That means nothing. In other words man underwent some changes after the flood, so what? By the time we see most animals and man start to be able to leave remains, we have entered this nature. They are not in the early record at all. Quote You weren't talking about origins. You were talking about telling the difference between ape and human bones. That is origins, if you claim that those skulls represent where modern man came from. By origins we are talking about where man came from, and that includes (in the TOE fable) the supposed ancestor apes you claim. Quote To you, the fact that I can tell the difference between human and ape bones means I was taught lies? The fact that you think man came from animals is the lie. Be honest. Quote There is a huge amount of difference between believing that Genesis should not be interpreted strictly literally and believing that God didn't tell the truth. God uses figurative language in several places in Genesis 1-3. False. The only difference is belief or disbelief. The rest of the bible confirms creation was real. The only reason anyone calls Genesis figurative is because they don't believe it. Yes there are also lessons, symbolism, and figures of the true in all the bible. That does not take away from the reality and truth of the record. Quote There are sufficient reasons to consider figurative language regarding the creation week and the creation of Adam and Eve, as well. Yes, because some chose to not believe it. It is called delusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 24, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2020 Your fellow YE creationists say you're wrong. And they actually know about the subject. 7 hours ago, dad2 said: No. Yes, they do. They actually know the relevant facts and admit there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", and that there is "gobs and gobs of it." They don't accept the evidence because of their religious beliefs, but they are too honest to lie about it. 7 hours ago, dad2 said: But since evos like to try to cause division and misrepresent what people say, I would take your claim with a grain of salt. I've cited them here before, but I'll be pleased to show you yet again... Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 24, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2020 7 hours ago, Cletus said: i could care less what kurt wise claims and if he is a doctor. that stuff dont impress me. titles do not impress me. because someone says something that is a doctor or head of some higher learning does not make what they say factual or trust worthy. Wise actually knows the evidence and honestly admits what it is. And it matters. He knows. You don't. Hence the issue. You're putting your faith in man instead of God. Men invented YE creationism, and they knew no more than you do about the issue. 8 hours ago, Cletus said: and if evolution was a thing there would be vast amounts of evidence to support it... As you learned your fellow creationist, Todd Wood admits "gobs and gobs"of evidence. See above. Another of your fellow creationists has listed dozens of series of transitional forms. And that's not all the evidence. Would you like to see some more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 24, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2020 16 hours ago, HAZARD said: Survival of the fittest? Can evolutionists tell me which chimpanzee died out and eventually became a man. Chimpanzees didn't develop into men, anymore than men developed into chimpanzees. They both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither human nor a chimpanzee. Haven't heard that one in a long, long time. Most creationists have figured that one out, long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman Posted February 24, 2020 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/13/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2020 I think this is a debate between some who are trying to honestly reconcile the Genesis account with the scientific record and others who choose to deny the scientific data since it threatens their beliefs. These argue from a place of fear rather than faith (even though they won’t admit), which is obvious from the tendency to engage in charged personal attacks, angry dogmatic statements and rhetorical straw men This argument can never converge, nor can anyone learn a thing since ears are closed. Why not just let it go and find a discussion thread where a genuine conversation can occur? Just sayin... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAZARD Posted February 24, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 320 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 6,830 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 3,570 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/16/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2020 15 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Chimpanzees didn't develop into men, anymore than men developed into chimpanzees. They both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither human nor a chimpanzee. Haven't heard that one in a long, long time. Most creationists have figured that one out, long ago. An what was the common ancestor? Do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted February 24, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2020 15 minutes ago, Starman said: This argument can never converge, nor can anyone learn a thing since ears are closed. Why not just let it go and find a discussion thread where a genuine conversation can occur? This point has a lot of merit, but if I’d given up after 100 pages, as I was tempted to do, I would have missed the opportunity for some actual dialogue that was initiated by your questions. I cannot and do not know if there are others that might be interested in hearing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted February 24, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2020 32 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Quote Your fellow YE creationists say you're wrong. And they actually know about the subject. The proof is in the pudding. So far it sounds like a bunch of overrated ignorant and faith based spineless compromising nonsense. Quote Yes, they do. They actually know the relevant facts and admit there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", They are out of their gourds if they thought that included evidence that man descended from animals. As for the degree to which evolution could happen, that is irrelevant! There is neither the time, nor the starting point from non life that evos preach, and the bible twisting straw grasping 'christian' cheer leaders proclaim. Quote They don't accept the evidence because of their religious beliefs, but they are too honest to lie about it. That says squat. Because the 'it' is irrelevant. Even if for example they wanted to call it macroevolution that one tiger pair resulted in some thirty species of tigers we see today, it is totally irrelevant. I've cited them here before, but I'll be pleased to show you yet again... Quote Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. Who gives a hoot about supposed 'traditional creation theory'?? That is a joke. Define it? What flood geology? Ha. The different state past predicts all and any pre flood fossil life we find! It is a record of some few things that lived in the former nature that could leave fossil remains. The DSP predicts that it is impossible to deduce what evolved from what based on this extremely little limited sample of life on earth that is the fossil record. The assumption in using the fossil record is that what we see either today or later in the fossil record had to have evolved from things in the fossil record! No. Not even remotely valid. Quote Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. What there is gobs of evidence is that this poor guy has no clue and doesn't know what he is talking about! If he includes TOE in what he or she means by evolution then he is an embarrassment to the cause. Prating foolishness, echoed by those who are similarly in the dark. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. Quote I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. They were right. This guy is clueless if he includes the evolution of man and life on earth in what he means by using the word 'evolution'. ut who can say from just some snippet you quote? Quote People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Like anyone would care what some evo preacher with a christian tee shirt declares deluded? Seriously? Ha. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts