Because?
Because... just because! Isn't that good enough of a reason for you?
Because?
Because... just because! Isn't that good enough of a reason for you?
19th century? No... August 2015 evolutionists still try portray Neandertals as less than ourselves.
Perhaps true... and it's an interesting point. Darwin seems to have been heavily influenced by evolutionists that preceded him such as Patrick Matthew and his grandfather Erasmus.alwight said:My point was really that when Darwin was young most people in his society would probably have been creationists
Science helps us understand that the universe and life didn't magically pop into existence. Science helps us understand our universe and life are evidence of an Intelligent Creator.alwight said:the Bible was at the time the most accepted explanation for life. But we know better these days of course, modern life evolved over many millions of years and wasn't magically created.
alwight said:A view of the distant past is still available to see right now from the depths of space, light from billions of years ago is only just getting here now.
alwight said:I think that the world probably*accreted*rather than was miraculously created. Why that could only mean your version of God I really do not know.6days said:Look at the world around you.
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
Shifting the goalposts... you asked for evidence, but you suddenly shift to interpretation of evidence.*alwight said:Yes a clear record of Darwinian evolution and the great age of the Earth is well evidenced.6days said:Look at evidence from genetics, archaeology, geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology etc.
Thanks to science some of those evolutionary beliefs have receded. *alwight said:I think that view has rather receded somewhat these days.6days said:Yes... it is very interesting since evolutionists once claimed Neandertals were dimwitted, stooped over hairy creatures incapable of breeding with humans.
What does the date have to do with what we were discussing? You asked for evidence that we are descendants of Neandertals.*alwight said:New in 2011 anyway.6days said:"If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of*Molecular Biology and Evolution."
http://news.discovery.com/human/gene...hal-110718.htm
Simple.... evolutionists believe human intelligence and humanity evolved from apes. So it's a tough pill when science shows Neandertals as human as you and I... That is the Biblical model.*alwight said:Really, why would they do that do you think?6days said:...evolutionists still try portray Neandertals as less than ourselves.
Besides being wrong...
However, the YEC camp has provided a clear and concise definition of "kind," which has shown itself to be useful as a tool to determine fact from fiction.
The idea of some form of evolution clearly didn't start with Charles Darwin, but the possibilities of evolution by natural selection only became more realistic after the famous pioneer of geology James Hutton showed the great age of the Earth as evidenced in the ground.Perhaps true... and it's an interesting point. Darwin seems to have been heavily influenced by evolutionists that preceded him such as Patrick Matthew and his grandfather Erasmus.My point was really that when Darwin was young most people in his society would probably have been creationists
Science hasn't exactly replaced any god but afaic it has debunked YECism as a by-product.Science helps us understand that the universe and life didn't magically pop into existence. Science helps us understand our universe and life are evidence of an Intelligent Creator.the Bible was at the time the most accepted explanation for life. But we know better these days of course, modern life evolved over many millions of years and wasn't magically created.
Rubbish, that is my belief based on science, the observable evidence and the speed of light, not whether a god was behind it originally or not.That is your belief based on the 'religion' of God didn't do it. My belief is that God stretched the heavens out. Evidence for my 'religion' includes mature galaxies in what you believe is the distant past.A view of the distant past is still available to see right now from the depths of space, light from billions of years ago is only just getting here now.
I don't claim to have any beliefs about the ultimate cause of the universe but I see no reason to have a very specific supernatural belief.You think the world accreted because you believe in Goldilocks stories 'it was just right'. You essentially need to believe that our universe which appears designed, was uncaused. You have an illogical belief, because everything we know which begins to exist..... always has a cause. You believe, it would seem, that nothing caused everything and that life comes from non life.I think that the world probably*accreted*rather than was miraculously created. Why that could only mean your version of God I really do not know.6days said:Look at the world around you.
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
If there is a rational alternative naturalistic explanation then what you rush to conclude is evidence of your God is not in fact evidence of anyone's specific god or even a god.Shifting the goalposts... you asked for evidence, but you suddenly shift to interpretation of evidence.*Yes a clear record of Darwinian evolution and the great age of the Earth is well evidenced.6days said:Look at evidence from genetics, archaeology, geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology etc.
(Evidence from genetics, astronomy, geology etc provide excellent evidence for the truth of God's Word and the young earth)
I don't see Neanderthals as being particularly relevant to Darwinian evolution, just an incidental feature of interest. They simply show that forms of human life also adapt, come and go just as with other life.Thanks to science some of those evolutionary beliefs have receded.I think that view has rather receded somewhat these days.6days said:Yes... it is very interesting since evolutionists once claimed Neandertals were dimwitted, stooped over hairy creatures incapable of breeding with humans.
You did quote it as new, that's all, no need to bristle.What does the date have to do with what we were discussing? You asked for evidence that we are descendants of Neandertals.*6days said:"If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of*Molecular Biology and Evolution."
http://news.discovery.com/human/gene...hal-110718.htm
New in 2011 anyway.
Actually I don't really like to be labelled "evolutionist" simply because I believe that Darwinian evolution happens to provide the best rational explanation for life as we know it.Simple.... evolutionists believe human intelligence and humanity evolved from apes. So it's a tough pill when science shows Neandertals as human as you and I... That is the Biblical model.Really, why would they do that do you think?6days said:...evolutionists still try portray Neandertals as less than ourselves.
Yep, and by your definition, all life on earth is the same "kind".
However, species has no set definition.
We hear it said that it needs no definition
"The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not easy, because it is in essence a historical project, in which the evidence is strictly limited by the evidence available today. This problem is analogous to the problems in constructing phylogenetic trees, where evolutionary biologists struggle to determine which criteria should be used in determining how life is related." |
"Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon. Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs. Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas." Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks. Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****. Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex. Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials. Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres. Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[10] Humanity — Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of the University of Munich concluded that H. erectus/H. ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) genus Homo." |
creationists believe there were many created kinds. Science.
I thought you were leaving. :loser:Contrary to what Stripe will tell us.
They are talking about the "project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds," not the definition.Creation Wiki seems to think otherwise:
It doesn't matter where an idea comes from. Those who think the origins of an idea are important are practicing a logical fallacy. I think evolutionists have been fooled by the name of the error — the genetic fallacy — which would explain why they keep using it. :chuckle:Based on what?
I was just waving you goodbye, not the thread, to stop me from having to gnaw my right arm off Stripe.I thought you were leaving. :loser:
So you agree now that it isn't easy, good, progress.:up:They are talking about the "project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds," not the definition.
The confusion is all yours Stripe.:hammer:A common mistake among evolutionists. Definitions and classification programs are entirely different things.
Getting the Stripe Seal of Disapproval is actually not the same thing as being wrong, and probably quite the opposite in fact. lain:One more matter of scientific importance that you have gotten dramatically wrong in this thread. You're yet to retract any of them.
(Stripe thinks that this thread revolves around him.)I was just waving you goodbye, not the thread, to stop me from having to gnaw my right arm off Stripe. So you agree now that it isn't easy, good, progress.:up:The confusion is all yours Stripe.:hammer:Getting the Stripe Seal of Disapproval is actually not the same thing as being wrong, and probably quite the opposite in fact. lain:
True....evolutionism has existed in various forms for more than 2000 years.alwight said:The idea of some form of evolution clearly didn't start with Charles Darwin...
Science has helped confirm the truth of God's Word, debunking many evolutionary beliefs along the way, such as "junk" DNA....transitional humans...."simple" cells, etc.alwight said:Science hasn't exactly replaced any god but afaic it has debunked YECism as a by-product.
Not entirely true. Rather, you interpret evidence in a way that supports your belief. Whether you are Hindu, Atheist, or Christian we all have the same observable evidence.alwight said:Rubbish, that is my belief based on science, the observable evidence and the speed of light, not whether a god was behind it originally or not.
I'm sure you are aware of atheists who held similar views, eventually coming to the realization they were being religious... not scientific. As atheists they were committed to not follow the evidence if it seemed to point to an Intelligent Creator. Science is the search for knowledge. ... not an unwillingness to follow the evidence to a Creator.alwight said:I don't claim to have any beliefs about the ultimate cause of the universe but I see no reason to have a very specific supernatural belief.
That's the typical evolutionist response after the fact... when science proves the evolutionary assumptions wrong.alwight said:I don't see Neanderthals as being particularly relevant to Darwinian evolution, just an incidental feature of interest.
No... ha, I quoted a 2011 article that claimed it was new back then.... we are descendants of Neandertals.*alwight said:You did quote it as new, that's all, no need to bristle.6days said:You asked for evidence that we are descendants of Neandertals.
Neandertals like us are humans, descendants of Adam and Eve... and we are descendants of them. Distinct people groups such as Neandertals are perfectly consistent with the Biblical model and observable science. *(While evolution from apes is an in observable belief and not science)alwight said:Neanderthals, like us*were*apes, evolved Great Apes and thus perfectly consistent with Darwinian evolution, who lived and died out a great many years before your supposed global flood and creation.
Perhaps we should stick to evolution by natural selection?True....evolutionism has existed in various forms for more than 2000 years.
Junk DNA in the Bible? Really?Science has helped confirm the truth of God's Word, debunking many evolutionary beliefs along the way, such as "junk" DNA....transitional humans...."simple" cells, etc.
You really didn't need to capitalise the "a" in atheist here 6days, it isn't a proper noun just like "theist" but is unlike "Christian" and "Hindu" with all their many cultural traditions and doctrine based beliefs.Not entirely true. Rather, you interpret evidence in a way that supports your belief. Whether you are Hindu, Atheist, or Christian we all have the same observable evidence.
Be sure to let me know when you have some God-specific Creator indicating evidence to show me.I'm sure you are aware of atheists who held similar views, eventually coming to the realization they were being religious... not scientific. As atheists they were committed to not follow the evidence if it seemed to point to an Intelligent Creator. Science is the search for knowledge. ... not an unwillingness to follow the evidence to a Creator.
That's rather how you can tell that science is working to peer review and falsify previous conclusions, and how science corrects its own interpretations if they are not totally accurate. If scientists were really stuck in a rut of evolutionary bias then no such corrections would ever happen and science would be in a mess.That's the typical evolutionist response after the fact... when science proves the evolutionary assumptions wrong.
For example...just a few years ago the fossil 'Ida' was hailed as an important transitional link leading to humans. Now that science has debunked that, evolutionists say 'Ida' was interesting but not important.
I think some of us only have some Neanderthal DNA, but it's a gross overstatement to say we are descended from them, since clearly many of us are not.No... ha, I quoted a 2011 article that claimed it was new back then.... we are descendants of Neandertals.*
So you say but since they lived and died out long before your supposed creation event, it isn't exactly the Bible according to YECs anyway.Neandertals like us are humans, descendants of Adam and Eve... and we are descendants of them. Distinct people groups such as Neandertals are perfectly consistent with the Biblical model and observable science. *(While evolution from apes is an in observable belief and not science)
No... ha, I quoted a 2011 article that claimed it was new back then.... we are descendants of Neandertals.*
It doesn't matter where an idea comes from.
Science has helped confirm the truth of God's Word, debunking many evolutionary beliefs along the way, such as "junk" DNA....transitional humans.
Not entirely true. Rather, you interpret evidence in a way that supports your belief. Whether you are Hindu, Atheist, or Christian we all have the same observable evidence.