Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[mark kennedy]

No, you can talk about creationism without involving apologetics. It's very hard to do, but it's doable. You arguing with Speedwell for the last two pages has been nothing but apologetics.

Thats because I have long felt that creationism is an exercise in evidential apologetics. Speedwell is a good guy I think is being lulled into a false sense of security by Darwinians. I do agree, at least in part, that the subject matter need not be contentious. The truth is I have grown rather fond of Darwinism over the years and if there is anyone I would like to have had the chance to meet from history I think it would be Charles Darwin. So much of this is philosophical and intellectual but an evidential approach to the issues is so very important to a discussion like this.

Believe it or not I'm not impervious to correction. Perhaps you could suggest a way of elevating the discussion, I know I get tired of the drama.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

The fossil issue was settled on page one, with the video.
The other 11 pages are you claiming creationism FTW, without one shred of support for your claims.

That's because I'm well aware of the fossil evidence and have a very different perspective on this. If you think that the question of human origins and evolution has been definitively settled I say go in peace, I have no problem with you. If on the other hand you would be willing to hear a little honest skepticism that what I post here looking for. I've just been convinced over the years that the stone age tool wielding ape man is contrived. I must admit, at one time I was nearly convinced by the fossil record alone and was fully prepared to make some requisite changes to my theology. Comparative genomics changed all of that for me, since then I grown increasingly skeptical of the motives and bias in the scientific community regarding origins. Darwinism is riddled with fallacious reasoning, very often creationism is little better.

“It is disconcerting to realize that as their intellects were shaped and limited by the dogmas—often scientific—of their day, so may the intellect of the modern investigator be shaped by the a priori judgments of his time” (The Fossil Chronicles, Dean Falk)
​

That's a died in the wool Darwinian being skeptical of paleontologists. This Taung Child fossil has been called the most important hominid fossil ever unearthed, I tend to agree. Raymond Dart was the first person to suggest the term, 'Homo habilis' or the famous 'handy man' tool wielding ape. Louis Leakey cites him in Latest News From Oldovia Gorge in the early sixties in the same paper that rejected the cerebral rubicon as a basis for inclusion in human lineage, loosely described as hominid.

You want to talk fossils I'm fully prepared to do so, I've gleaned a ton of stuff over the years. It's been my experience that first you have to wade through the fallacious reasoning and posturing in order to get that far. So if your interested, lets talk fossils, I would thoroughly enjoy it. I just really don't think you would enjoy my critique of that video in the OP, I try to be reasonable but I'm a stickler for logical progression in an argument.

You want to get evidential, lets do it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not on this site.

But any child can tell you it was a miracle.

Yeah.... children will believe just about anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which is my whole problem with Darwinism. 'God-didn't-do-it' does not have explanatory power either.

Have a nice day
Mark

You think that that is what "darwinism" says?

Where do you people get this stuff....

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah.... children will believe just about anything.

Are you bragging or complaining?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The inverse logic is intuitively obvious, if God did it explains nothing and is inadequate to form a hypothesis, then so does God didn't do it.

Which is exactly why gods aren't even mentioned.
Because wheter you include them or not in some legit hypothesis, it changes nothing to the hypothesis.

Gods don't manifest anywhere.
Go ahead and claim that they manifest in "undetectable" ways, but then again that looks exactly the same as a god that simply doesn't manifest, or a god that doesn't exist.


Last but not least, try some honesty... the model of evolution theory does not consist of "god didn't do it". God isn't even mentioned. God is irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

God is irrelevant.

How irrelevant was gravity before it was discovered?

 

[mark kennedy]

You think that that is what "darwinism" says?

Where do you people get this stuff....

Darwin

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Creationism really comes down to evidence

What evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How irrelevant was gravity before it was discovered?

Not, I guess.

So, try again when you have some discovery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Darwin

No, Darwin never said any such thing.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, Darwin never said any such thing.

Yea, actually he did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence...wow...you really thing this is about sound bites.

What evidence? Please point out the evidence that supports creationism.

 

[mark kennedy]

What evidence? Please point out the evidence that supports creationism.

The Bible. <Staff Edit>

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God as the primary source,

How is that "obvious logic"?
To me, it seems like a rather random sentence...

<Staff Edit>

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible. <Staff Edit>

The Bible is the claim. The claim is not evidence of itself.

 

[mark kennedy]

How is that "obvious logic"?
To me, it seems like a rather random sentence...

If nature is one cause then God is the inverse logic, it's intuitively obvious.


<Staff Edit>

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If nature is one cause then God is the inverse logic, it's intuitively obvious.

This sentence doesn't seem to make any sense.

<Staff Edit>

 

[USincognito]

This Taung Child fossil has been called the most important hominid fossil ever unearthed, I tend to agree.

By whom?

 

[USincognito]

Which is my whole problem with Darwinism. 'God-didn't-do-it' does not have explanatory power either.

Of course those of us who approach this subject honestly know that "Darwinism" (whatever that means to you) doesn't say tacitly or implicitly "God didn't do it". But leaving that aside, why are you not also upset with Einsteinism which doesn't bring God into the equation? Or Pasteurism which explains transmissible diseases without bringing God into the equation. What about Elasserism? It doesn't bring God into the equation when explaining the magnetic field of the earth.

If you were truly as concerned with intellectual honesty as you feign being, you would be angry with all science, not just biology.