The Problem With Evolution Part 2- Animals

[RV_Wizard]

3 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

You said young earth twice in that post, did you mean to say old earth is a new concept? Or No?

I clarified.  His claim that belief in a your earth is a new concept is false teaching; just as the false doctrine of evolution is false teaching.

[BeyondET]

10 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Butterfly eggs become larvae we call caterpillars.  Butterflies do not give birth to butterflies.  Their eggs eventually become butterflies.  Your "evolution" claim makes no more since than saying a human baby evolves into a human.  It was never anything else.  It was just in a different state of growth.

Men don't give birth to humans either, so your claim makes no sense either since you typed it.

Now I will agree with you on the butterfly babies first but you need to look up what happens in the cocoon. The whole state of the caterpillar is dissolved into water period then transformed reconstructed and that isn't a growth state. That is creating a whole different structure from scratch.

Edited December 30, 2023 by BeyondET

[The Barbarian]

44 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Nope.  Moses believed in a young earth, because he recorded what God inspired him to write about it. 

Moses didn't offer an opinion on how old the Earth is.   Because God never told Him the Earth is young.

45 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Claiming that belief in a young earth is a new concept is false teaching.

YE creationism is quite different from thinking the Earth is young.   For example, St. Augustine was aware the the "days" of creation were not literal 24-hour days, but he thought the world was young from what was known at the time by philosophers.   

YE creationism is a modern doctrine, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.    The great Baptist evangelist Spurgeon, saw millions of years of Earth as true.   The creationism that was established at the time of the Scopes trial in the 1930s was OE creationism.   YE creationism is a modern invention.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

Here's similar to what I was reading. The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees,apes is unknown but there is evidence there was one.

Yes.   Problem is that forests are really bad places for fossilization.   Genetics indicates that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

Some suggest humans spit off from the greater ape family but that may not be the case and humans split from that ancient ancestor that both are common too.

Genetic data shows humans and chimps (including bonobos) as a clade that came about separate from other great apes.    Humans, chimps, and gorillas form a clade with Orangutans as the outgroup.  Again, mostly by genetic data, but also on anatomical data.

 

[BeyondET]

22 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes.   Problem is that forests are really bad places for fossilization.   Genetics indicates that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.

Genetic data shows humans and chimps (including bonobos) as a clade that came about separate from other great apes.    Humans, chimps, and gorillas form a clade with Orangutans as the outgroup.  Again, mostly by genetic data, but also on anatomical data.

 

Probably quite afew places not the best for fossilization. What has been discovered is a drop in the bucket of ancestors and the sorts that most probably won't be found, that are buried crushed dissolved etc.

I think it would be astonishing to see or know every animal that has ever been on earth a complete tree.

From the outgroup, human of earth becomes man in the garden to 8 billion lol.

Edited December 30, 2023 by BeyondET

[The Barbarian]

7 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Probably quite afew places not the best for fossilization. What has been discovered is a drop in the bucket of ancestors and the sorts that most probably won't be found, that are buried crushed dissolved etc.

From the outgroup, human of earth becomes man in the garden to 8 billion lol.

Which suggests the grace of God was working.   When a population is a single mating pair, the outlook for survival as a species is pretty grim.    Not impossible, but rather unlikely.

We find important new fossils almost monthly.    We're doing better now, because we have some idea the age of rocks where different transitions are likely to be found.

[BeyondET]

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

Which suggests the grace of God was working.   When a population is a single mating pair, the outlook for survival as a species is pretty grim.    Not impossible, but rather unlikely.

We find important new fossils almost monthly.    We're doing better now, because we have some idea the age of rocks where different transitions are likely to be found.

Indeed I totally agree, I would say also, first soul in a vessel isn't an issue in a healthy population of vessels but the opposite would cause a survival issue indeed.

[Sparks]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

YE creationism is a modern revision of God's word.    Invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the early years of the last century, it was spread to fundamentalists by the Adventists.

I prefer His word to those of men.  Why do you doubt Him?

I don't doubt the Bible or what God said he did.

[Sparks]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.   That was the conclusion of the authors of the paper you cited.   Did you read it?

I did read it; the original, and the revamped.  The revamped came along because of so much whining from the evolution community that they had to re-release it with a disclaimer.

Why put a disclaimer if it is so clear?

[BeyondET]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I clarified.  His claim that belief

in a your earth

is a new concept is false teaching; just as the false doctrine of evolution is false teaching.

A young earth, 😒 🤔 

Figure that, you'd add a quick little kidney shot huh.