Creation vs. Evolution

[iouae]

Done.

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/cladestrat/introduction.html

I am wanting to see where YEC explain sorting of fossils into strata.

 

[TheDuke]

No, he feels baboons thinking represents some of the highest stages of primate thinking. He feels by studying this, one can see the stages through which human thinking evolved. I do not think this is invalid science at all.

Well, that's a very different story, maybe it helps if you pay attention when talking about a subject.....

Evolution has a lovely copout. If you look at the Tree of Life you never see humans evolving from apes. What you see is a tree trunk with apes branching off the trunk, but with the tree climaxing in the human branch.

This is a big fat copout, and a cowardly one at that in that one can never pin down what exactly each branch originated from. In other words, we never see the exact organism from which a branch arises.

Thus you can correctly say that we do not come from modern apes, but you cannot give the exact creature from which each ape branch arose, nor the exact creature from which the human branch arose.

I am sure this will be too subtle for you to grasp, but it essentially renders the theory of evolution to be too fuzzy to prove or disprove. And fuzzy is clearly your friend.

So lemme help you out with a page full of clarifications:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evotrees_interpretations

The exact organism you're talking about is called a "common ancestor". If you are so interested in human evolution, go ahead and do some googling. It's fun, I promise.

 

[TheDuke]

Why is it that the closest creature to humans is chimps/bonobos?
Would this fit the evolutionary tale or creationist tale?

You tell me, was it not that according to creationism all animals were spontaneously made in a puff of pixie dust?
Strangely enough, our genetically closest relatives, also happen to share most of our physiological characteristics, just like evo states!

Why are Neanderthals, H. erectus, H. naledi, H. heidelbergensis, H. habilis and all the other Homo's not around today? As far as I know, evolution does not have an answer as to why these died out.

there's this thing called "natural selection", possibly in this case also contributed by a thing called "hybrid speciation"

But the Bible starts with a mass extinction before Adam and Eve, and a mass extinction called the flood, both of which would have killed all the other hominids.

Of course, except that the fossils tell a bit different story.....
And obviously your mythical mass extinctions aren't evident by anything in science to date....

 

[TheDuke]

Hi Michael

I have never been, and never will be a YEC. I am an OEC.
When 6days takes to pointing out the mote in my eye/theory, I like to point out the beam in his eye/theory.

I am glad you still find time to keep the thread on track.

Regards

Right, you do know what this sounds like to us? well in case you don't, I've tried paraphrasing it:

"The little green critters with huge brains and tentacles - come on, I could never believe in something ridiculous like that. But the flying saucers - now that's real, I swear I've seen them myself!"

 

[iouae]

Um.....because humans, chimps and bonobos all share a recent common ancestry. :duh:

So why are these animals so unlike humans? Evolutions answer is feeble compared to Gen 1 which states only man was made in the image of God.

Seriously? You really, truly, honestly don't think evolutionary theory accounts for extinctions? Really?

Do some work and tell me why all the Neanderthals and other Homos died out, and man did not.

Where in the Bible does it mention "other hominids"?

Gen 1:2 starts after a mass extinction - duh. Why would it mention any other fossilised species?

Wow....that's hilarious. If you honestly think "we have a story" is a contribution to science, I'll just let that speak for itself.

Having man made in the image of God, with abstract thought, and then all the rest of the animals so much lower than mankind better fits the creation story than evolution. At least we could have expected a few of the other hominids to have stuck around. Or something a little closer to mankind. But you are going to do some evolutionary research and tell us why they went extinct, according to evolutions fairy tale.

 

[iouae]

Right, you do know what this sounds like to us? well in case you don't, I've tried paraphrasing it:

"The little green critters with huge brains and tentacles - come on, I could never believe in something ridiculous like that. But the flying saucers - now that's real, I swear I've seen them myself!"

No that's what evolutionists believe, that life could equally have evolved elsewhere in the universe, and therefore there should be lots of little green critters out there. So you truly tell YOUR story well.

 

[iouae]

You tell me, was it not that according to creationism all animals were spontaneously made in a puff of pixie dust?
Strangely enough, our genetically closest relatives, also happen to share most of our physiological characteristics, just like evo states!

For 95-98% similar DNA, explain why chimps are not close to being human.

there's this thing called "natural selection", possibly in this case also contributed by a thing called "hybrid speciation"

Well explain that then, telling us "where did all the hominids go, long time passing".

Of course, except that the fossils tell a bit different story.....
And obviously your mythical mass extinctions aren't evident by anything in science to date....

Walk out of your cabin, and look at the nearest sedimentary rock, which is probably what you are standing on, and see evidence for rock made in a flood. If you want to pretend to be a scientist, at least open your eyes and do a bit of observing.

 

[alwight]

No you don't. When presented with evidence your eyes have always glazed over and you claim consensus.

A scientific consensus does have at least some rather good indicative value even before looking at the evidence and the reasoning. It isn't real evidence that makes me lose interest it's typically irrational conclusions and bald assertions like yours that do that.

Ah. Now your irrational behavior makes sense. You live in fear that perhaps something you currently consider ridiculous would be a prison to you instead of simply following the evidence where it leads. At least you admit that the evidence is against your common descent blind faith.

No, I simply see no rationality or reason for belief in voodoo, magic or the miraculous nor in blind adherence to an ancient scripture.

A wiser man would say that even with the evidence clearly showing common descent to be wrong, that is does not necessarily prove the God of the bible and His creation. A wiser man would not live a life of fear as you do.

I already knew your opinion of common descent Yorzhik which you have obviously dismissed a priori, without any heed to scientific conclusions nor indeed peer reviewed consensus.

 

[Jose Fly]

So why are these animals so unlike humans?

They aren't "so unlike humans". As I said before, chimps/bonobos are more genetically similar to humans than they are to any other primate.

Evolutions answer is feeble compared to Gen 1 which states only man was made in the image of God.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.....because you say so.

Do some work and tell me why all the Neanderthals and other Homos died out, and man did not.

You've already shown that it's pointless to try and explain anything scientific to you, so I think I'll pass.

Gen 1:2 starts after a mass extinction - duh. Why would it mention any other fossilised species?

Hmmmm....no mention of "other hominids" in there at all. So much for that.

Having man made in the image of God, with abstract thought, and then all the rest of the animals so much lower than mankind better fits the creation story than evolution.

I'm sure that's what you believe, but that's only relevant to you.

 

[iouae]

You've already shown that it's pointless to try and explain anything scientific to you, so I think I'll pass.

In other words you don't have a clue do you why Homo sapiens is around and all the other Homos are not.

You can pretend to talk the talk, but you don't seem to be able to walk the walk.

 

[Jose Fly]

In other words you don't have a clue do you why Homo sapiens is around and all the other Homos are not.

You can pretend to talk the talk, but you don't seem to be able to walk the walk.

Like I said, we've been down this road before and it was made abundantly clear that when you ask for a scientific explanation for something, after it's given all you'll respond with is "God just made it that way".

So when you try and get me to repeat that folly, my response is "No thanks".

 

[iouae]

Like I said, we've been down this road before and it was made abundantly clear that when you ask for a scientific explanation for something, after it's given all you'll respond with is "God just made it that way".

So when you try and get me to repeat that folly, my response is "No thanks".

Just admit it Jose - you don't have a clue. Try Googling it. I tried. Evolution so far as I can tell does not have a clue where all the other hominids went or why they were so unsuccessful and died out. For instance Neanderthals were almost better than H. sapiens, yet they are gone. Why?

 

[Jose Fly]

Just admit it Jose - you don't have a clue. Try Googling it. I tried. Evolution so far as I can tell does not have a clue where all the other hominids went or why they were so unsuccessful and died out. For instance Neanderthals were almost better than H. sapiens, yet they are gone. Why?

Ok, let's say for the sake of argument that paleoanthropologists don't know for sure why previous hominid species went extinct.

Therefore........?

 

[User Name]

Alwight, you do know that before the end of this year is up, you will get all the proof you need, for the Lord has told me that Armageddon shall happen before then.

Really? What will you have to say when January 1, 2016 rolls around and Armageddon hasn't started?

I won't be on earth to say anything to anyone here. The situation you speak of won't happen, so it's unnecessary for me to debate it.

Michael

:dog:

:zoomin:

Bump.

 

[Jonahdog]

Ok, let's say for the sake of argument that paleoanthropologists don't know for sure why previous hominid species went extinct.

Therefore........?

God. obviously you have not been paying attention. The Biblical one.

 

[6days]

Caino: "I*believe Jesus is what he said he was ..."

6 days: "Caino....i think you reject what Jesus said, or twist it to fit your belief system..."

Caino: "Jesus was confined to using what was available,"

6days: "So... you don't believe what He said."

Caino: "No, I don't think he said it in the way you meant it or how it may have been remembered by the authors"

If you don't trust what the authors wrote, then how can say that you believe what Jeaus said... since you seem to not know what He really said.

 

[6days]

I am wanting to see where YEC explain sorting of fossils into strata.

There are some good peer reviewed articles in journal of creation and others as well. You can even find free articles online...if you eeally wanted to find them.

 

[Caino]

Caino: "I*believe Jesus is what he said he was ..."

6 days: "Caino....i think you reject what Jesus said, or twist it to fit your belief system..."

Caino: "Jesus was confined to using what was available,"

6days: "So... you don't believe what He said."

Caino: "No, I don't think he said it in the way you meant it or how it may have been remembered by the authors"

If you don't trust what the authors wrote, then how can say that you believe what Jeaus said... since you seem to not know what He really said.

That's a good and legitimate question, why do I believe in God at all when I also believe there are so many errors in the scripture????

* For me personally there was enough there to believe in him as a young person raised in Christianity while I did not believe things taught in church. After my "spirt birth" I sense the presence of Jesus Christ who is here now with us as we discuss these matters.

* Then I found the Urantia Book at 22, got what I believe to be the full story from beings that were on the earth, before, during and after Jesus. With the actual words of Jesus in hand I can more easily separate facts from human error.

* You might find this odd and difficult to understand but I actually believe more of the content of the Bible due to the UB's explanation of the events spoken of by the authors of the Bible books.

 

[6days]

If you are so interested in human evolution, go ahead and do some googling. It's fun,

Surely you must mean 'It's funny'.

If you are interested in human 'evolution'....you should read God's Word. *It will help you understand why humans appear designed.*

*It will help you understand why we have various population groups but why only one species.*

*It will help you understand why we have the different language groups.*

*It will help you understand why genetic problems are increasing.

*Reading God's Word will help you understand why evolutionism had consistently been wrong about human fossils....and why there have been frauds.

*God's Word helps us understand why evolutionists have been proven wrong by science on things like the design of our eyes, psuedogenes, useless organs, junk DNA and more.

 

[Jose Fly]

evolutionists have been proven wrong by science on things like the design of our eyes, psuedogenes, useless organs, junk DNA and more.

Let's think about this talking point for a bit....

Granting the talking point for the sake of argument, we have to ask...how and by whom were those things "proven wrong"? It wasn't creationists who did that, but rather those things were allegedly proven wrong by....you guessed it....other "evolutionists" (IOW, scientists). So that means the authority for deciding what has and hasn't been proven wrong are scientists.

But what happens if we apply that same framework to creationism? What about creationism has been proved wrong by scientists? Let's see....

The universe isn't less than 10,000 years old.

The earth isn't less than 10,000 years old.

Organisms were not instantaneously created less than 10,000 years ago.

Organisms were not created according to "kinds".

H. sapiens are not separate and unrelated to other organisms.

The entire earth was not flooded ~4,000 years ago.

All organisms were not wiped out ~4,000 years ago.

The human population was not reduced to 8 individuals ~4,000 years ago.

Extant species are not descended from single pairs of "kinds" that existed ~4,000 years ago.​

We could keep going for quite a while, but the conclusion is clear. By the same standard 6days uses to claim that "evolutionists have been proven wrong" on some fairly minor things, essentially the entirety of creationism has been proven wrong.

Now of course we all know it doesn't work this way in creationist world. They're oblivious to their own logical fallacies, such as the fallacy of the double standard.

IOW, it goes something like...

Creationist: Evolutionists have been proven wrong on things like psuedogenes, useless organs, and junk DNA.

Me: By who?

Creationist: By scientists.

Me: But by the same measure, creationism is entirely false since scientists have proven it wrong.

Creationist: Well, that doesn't count because.......reasons.