Open Questions Concerning Darwinism

[Keachian]

Would it interest you to know that the biggest difference between Darwinism and Creationism is the timeline? Darwin was a gradualist, his problem what has been called macroevolution, organs being a major issue with that. The problem with Creationism is not whether or not God acted in time and space. The real problem is what your starting point is and what had to happen in the space of thousands of years as opposed to millions.

ie. Whether you believe that God's creation doesn't speak plainly with regards to its own origins as opposed to a theological text which is far more concerned with theology rather than science.

That's how I see it at any rate. With Noah's Ark as the starting point how many original mammals, birds and reptiles are you starting with? How long ago was that? Had the evolutionists not run all the creationists off I would be asking them these questions as opposed to bringing it up in passing.

except interest in Noah's ark and the implications of it is a 50s question, there really wasn't any thought on it before then since geology discussions in the 18th Century iirc well before evolution became even a bit of a fledgling theory

 

[mark kennedy]

ie. Whether you believe that God's creation doesn't speak plainly with regards to its own origins as opposed to a theological text which is far more concerned with theology rather than science.

Redemptive history as recorded in the historical narratives are a theological focus. Reducing them to myth and metaphor is another matter. The New Testament speaks expressly and clearly with regards to our origins and the first man was Adam but all accounts.

except interest in Noah's ark and the implications of it is a 50s question, there really wasn't any thought on it before then since geology discussions in the 18th Century iirc well before evolution became even a bit of a fledgling theory

If you mean the 1850s I would agree, God as Creator is a concept that has been categorically rejected by main stream academics and science since at least the beginning of the 20th century.

 

[elahmine]

I recently happened upon a blog that had quoted one of my posts discussing gene expression. The post made the statement at the end of the whole thing that Francis Collins was a creationist. In case you didn't know it Francis Collins headed up the Human Genome Project and is opposed to Creationism in no uncertain terms, the man is a theistic evolutionist.

I bring up the questions on a real basic level because what theistic evolutionists need to understand is that Darwinism is opposed to theistic reasoning period.

The question was me rephrasing a very important statement regarding Darwinian logic. One that indicates that it is true for the evolutionist before any empirical evidence is examined. I was simply curious what kind of responses I would get, nothing more.



Well, for me to just bust into the forum and tell you that Darwinism is metaphysics won't fly. That was just a perception test, not really calling for a specific answer. The other questions are very specific and the true test is whether the answers are going to be direct since the specifics are evident and obvious.

There are far more important questions in evolutionary biology and I see great merit in pursuing the study. The only question in my mind is whether or not it Evolutionary Biology has anything to do with Christian Theology and the answer would appear to be absolutely not.

Nevertheless, I nurse enough of a doubt that I sometimes hazard a few feeler questions here just to confirm my suspicions. Not only that, I am genuinely curious if theistic evolutionists have any idea what is at stake.

Grace and peace,
Mark

That doesn't make it okay to skew questions in the way you did, and as much as you say this a yes/no answer indicates your answer that isn't the case.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

1) Darwinian Evolution .... even the ones we have not discovered?

2) If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection would absolutely break down?

3) Is Human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA greater then 98% the same?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. It depends on how you measure. Because anyone familiar with the field knows that, they always specify the measurement method in their papers. Besides, since you believe that humans evolved into chimps (not the other way around), wouldn't you, mark, expect it to be 98% or even higher?


mark wrote:

4) The Scriptures (Old and New Testament) clearly teach that Adam was the first human and we are all sinners because of the sin of Adam and Eve?

Yes, they do teach that. Now, mark, do you remember that myself and others have explained to you why a single, historical, first human Adam, the ancestor of us all and cause of original sin, is completely consistent with theistic evolution including the evolution of humans from earlier apes? Help me out here - I think we've explained that to you at least a half dozen times - is that your recollection too? So since your #4 appeared here, I have to ask:

mark, could you please indicate how many more times will we need to explain that a historical, single, original sin causing Adam is consistent with theistic evolution, all the scientific evidence, and the gradual evolution of humans from earlier animals?

a) No more times, mark understands this now.
b) 10 more times, but then mark will understand that.
c) 30 more times, but then mark will understand that.
d) 100 more times, but then mark will understand that.
e) More times than 100, but at some point mark will understand that.
f) mark will never understand that regardless of how many times it is explained to him.

Thank you-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

mark wrote:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. It depends on how you measure. Because anyone familiar with the field knows that, they always specify the measurement method in their papers. Besides, since you believe that humans evolved into chimps (not the other way around), wouldn't you, mark, expect it to be 98% or even higher?

Absurd as always. The specific measurement is aligned base pairs and you know that. I don't know where you get 'evolved into chimps' but then again I don't think you do either.

Yes, they do teach that. Now, mark, do you remember that myself and others have explained to you why a single, historical, first human Adam, the ancestor of us all and cause of original sin, is completely consistent with theistic evolution including the evolution of humans from earlier apes? Help me out here - I think we've explained that to you at least a half dozen times - is that your recollection too?

To my knowledge you are the only one who believes Adam married an ape. As a matter of fact, most evolutionists consider Adam to be a figure of speech, or would you like for me to point out the patented absurdities and inconsistencies of your arguments again? Tell you what, why don't you quiz your fellow evolutionists and see how many of them take Adam in Romans 5 literally or the doctrine of original sin seriously?

mark, could you please indicate how many more times will we need to explain that a historical, single, original sin causing Adam is consistent with theistic evolution, all the scientific evidence, and the gradual evolution of humans from earlier animals?

a) No more times, mark understands this now.

Always did understand, I just disagree.

b) 10 more times, but then mark will understand that.
c) 30 more times, but then mark will understand that.
d) 100 more times, but then mark will understand that.
e) More times than 100, but at some point mark will understand that.
f) mark will never understand that regardless of how many times it is explained to him.

Thank you-

Papias

Chant your pedantic mantras till your fingers turn blue, it makes no more sense now then it did the first time.

Blessed is the man who doesn’t walk in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stand in the way of sinners,
nor sit in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in law of the Lord.
On his law he meditates day and night. (Psalm 1:1,2)​

There is a reason the wisdom literature starts out with an indictment against foolish mockery.

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scoffers delight in their mockery, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. (Proverbs 1:22,23)​

Got another question for you, who does the Spirit speak to here?

 

[mark kennedy]

That doesn't make it okay to skew questions in the way you did, and as much as you say this a yes/no answer indicates your answer that isn't the case.

The question regarding Darwinian logic must be yes or no. Not because I said so but because it applies to all living systems, even the one undiscovered. That is transcendence, a metaphysical term denoting a substantive element that 'transcends' all reality. In this case, it transcends all living systems. If there is an exception then the statement is in error. Do note, it allows for no exceptions, not because I say so, but because Darwinians made it essential to their synthesis of biology.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

The question regarding Darwinian logic must be yes or no. Not because I said so but because it applies to all living systems, even the one undiscovered. That is transcendence, a metaphysical term denoting a substantive element that 'transcends' all reality. In this case, it transcends all living systems. If there is an exception then the statement is in error. Do note, it allows for no exceptions, not because I say so, but because Darwinians made it essential to their synthesis of biology.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Let's check this against something else:

The question regarding GRAVITY must be yes or no. Not because Mark Kennedy said so but because it applies to all SYSTEMS INTERACTING WITH ANY MASSES, even the ones undiscovered. That is transcendence, a metaphysical term denoting a substantive element that 'transcends' all reality. In this case, it transcends all SYSTEMS INVOLVING INTERACTION WITH MASS. If there is an exception then the statement is in error. Do note, it allows for no exceptions, not because I say so, but because Newtonists made it essential to their synthesis of physics.

So, since gravity is assumed to apply to all masses, even those undiscovered (like planets not yet discovered, dark matter, etc), is GRAVITY a metaphysical term denoting some element that transcends all reality?

Methinks no.

Metherion

Edited to add:

Or we could try this:

The question regarding SUBATOMIC PARTICLES must be yes or no. Not because Mark Kennedy said so but because it applies to all MATTER, even the TYPES undiscovered. That is transcendence, a metaphysical term denoting a substantive element that 'transcends' all reality. In this case, it transcends all MATTER. If there is an exception then the statement is in error. Do note, it allows for no exceptions, not because I say so, but because ATOMISTS made it essential to their synthesis of PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:
Absurd as always. The specific measurement is aligned base pairs and you know that.

So, who's being a scoffer? Did I call you "absurd"?

If your counting method is consistent, you can look up the amount of agreement. There are plenty of other methods too, including counting genes in common, etc. Either way, if you, mark, want to know, just look up what actual scientists have found - they are much better resource than I.

Originally Posted by Papias

Besides, since you believe that humans evolved into chimps (not the other way around), wouldn't you, mark, expect it to be 98% or even higher?

... I don't know where you get 'evolved into chimps' but then again I don't think you do either.

​

I get it from your previous statements. You has stated before that you think that the many transitional human ancestor fossils, which form a clear and compelling history of human evolution, are instead all ancestors of chimps who devolved from ~diluvian humans. And could you answer, please, what is the ancestor of those transitional fossils you say are chimp ancestors? After all, if I got the wrong impression of your beliefs, I'd like to correct that.

Here are a few places where many of us, including myself, have gotten that impression from you:

From http://www.christianforums.com/t7587649-3/#post58415833, you have:

What is have are chimpanzee ancestors being used to create the illusion of a transitional species of apemen.

The precursors to modern apes would have been larger and more robust as are all antediluvian parental forms.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7587649-4/

I've seen how the fossils have been handled and mishandled and chimpanzee ancestors are being passed off as our's, Taung being the most glaring example.

​

To my knowledge you are the only one who believes Adam married an ape.

I"ve stated many times that there are many possible scenarios regarding who Adam married, all consistent with both theistic evolution and a single, human, historical Adam. Also as I'm sure you remember, you've been shown that the Catholic Church and Pope support that idea, so I'm hardly alone there.

As a matter of fact, most evolutionists consider Adam to be a figure of speech,

Do you have data to show that? Or would you prefer to retract it? It may well be true, but I personally haven't seen data on what % of evolution supporters think of Adam (and would be interested in it).

or would you like for me to point out the patented absurdities and inconsistencies of your arguments again?

If you don't find that scenario compelling, then that's fine, don't believe it. But at least have the decency to recognize that many Christians do hold it.

Tell you what, why don't you quiz your fellow evolutionists and see how many of them take Adam in Romans 5 literally or the doctrine of original sin seriously?

Because I've got better, and more relevant things to do. If you'd like to quiz them on that, be my guest. You can start with me - I see Romans 5 literally, and take original sin quite seriously.

mark, could you please indicate how many more times will we need to explain that a historical, single, original sin causing Adam is consistent with theistic evolution, all the scientific evidence, and the gradual evolution of humans from earlier animals?

a) No more times, mark understands this now.

Always did understand, I just disagree.

Since you understand, do you think it would have been more honest to include that idea out of completeness in your question number 4, which seemed to be trying to make a point as if the Adam/original sin thing hadn't already been solved in the minds of many Christians?

​

Got another question for you, who does the Spirit speak to here?

Well, since you asked, I personally see those verses as applicable to creationists, especially those that mock what we've learned from God's other revelation, his creation itself. However, I don't trot those out to attack other Christians.


Papias
​

 

[mark kennedy]

Let's check this against something else:

The question regarding GRAVITY must be yes or no. Not because Mark Kennedy said so but because it applies to all SYSTEMS INTERACTING WITH ANY MASSES, even the ones undiscovered. That is transcendence, a metaphysical term denoting a substantive element that 'transcends' all reality. In this case, it transcends all SYSTEMS INVOLVING INTERACTION WITH MASS. If there is an exception then the statement is in error. Do note, it allows for no exceptions, not because I say so, but because Newtonists made it essential to their synthesis of physics.

So you are saying that the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes with regards to the origins and history of all living systems are tantamount to the law of gravity, which does allow for exceptions as do all laws of science. Which by the way, Darwinism contributed no laws of science to Biology. What is more, because Darwinian logic comes before the 'discovery' of life it is before the direct observation of demonstrations of empirical science and is therefor not science but supposition.

So, since gravity is assumed to apply to all masses, even those undiscovered (like planets not yet discovered, dark matter, etc), is GRAVITY a metaphysical term denoting some element that transcends all reality?

It is represented by a law of science, principles of motion, demonstrations, observations, predictions and empirical testing. Darwinian logic does not rely on such things since it comes before them.

Edited to add:

Or we could try this:

The question regarding SUBATOMIC PARTICLES must be yes or no. Not because Mark Kennedy said so but because it applies to all MATTER, even the TYPES undiscovered. That is transcendence, a metaphysical term denoting a substantive element that 'transcends' all reality. In this case, it transcends all MATTER. If there is an exception then the statement is in error. Do note, it allows for no exceptions, not because I say so, but because ATOMISTS made it essential to their synthesis of PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY.

If this kind of transcendence is so clearly demonstrated then why did both Einstein, Hawkins fail to produce a unified field theory?

 

[mark kennedy]

mark wrote:
Absurd as always. The specific measurement is aligned base pairs and you know that.

So, who's being a scoffer? Did I call you "absurd"?

Chimps evolving from man? That was what I was referring to as absurd and you always have these silly absurdities weaved into your arguments.

If your counting method is consistent, you can look up the amount of agreement. There are plenty of other methods too, including counting genes in common, etc. Either way, if you, mark, want to know, just look up what actual scientists have found - they are much better resource than I.

I have, what is more I have shown you repeatedly that the only way you can get greater the 98% the same is to not count the indels. You ignore this and continue to chant that it all depends which isn't as absurd as it is just plain wrong.

]I get it from your previous statements. You has stated before that you think that the many transitional human ancestor fossils, which form a clear and compelling history of human evolution, are instead all ancestors of chimps who devolved from ~diluvian humans. And could you answer, please, what is the ancestor of those transitional fossils you say are chimp ancestors? After all, if I got the wrong impression of your beliefs, I'd like to correct that.

I never said or suggested the chimps devolved from diluvian humans, that is not only absurd, it's asinine. The Taung Child and Lucy being two of my primary examples of Chimpanzee ancestors being passed off as human ancestors. Both of those skulls are small even for a modern ape, what is your point? I have also said that modern chimpanzees have devolved from their ancestors but the thought never occurred to me that chimpanzees evolved from humans. The rules of CF bar me from telling you exactly what I think of your childish, inane trolling tactics but you should be ashamed of yourself!

I"ve stated many times that there are many possible scenarios regarding who Adam married, all consistent with both theistic evolution and a single, human, historical Adam. Also as I'm sure you remember, you've been shown that the Catholic Church and Pope support that idea, so I'm hardly alone there.

Adam had to be the first human soul, the first true human according to the dogma of the RCC. There is no question about that and you as a Catholic are not allowed to have another view. I have shown you explicit statements of the current Pope with regards to Creation being inextricably linked to salvation, the resurrection and the inescapable historicity of the Genesis narratives. All points of doctrine theistic evolutionists commonly deny, dismissing them as figurative. You have failed to make a coherent case for the things you are claiming and beg the question of proof on your hands and knees.

You are very much alone here, theistic evolutionists, by and large, do not share your views.

Do you have data to show that? Or would you prefer to retract it? It may well be true, but I personally haven't seen data on what % of evolution supporters think of Adam (and would be interested in it).

I have been debated them for six years, I am well acquainted with what they believe and how they argue human ancestry and so are you:

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)​

You keep saying that these things have already been explained to me again and again. The truth is that you are the one who is ignoring the substantive arguments you have been shown clearly and repeatedly:

Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts (HG 36)​

Dr. Ayala, someone you cited as an authority flatly denies your theory. The position of the RCC is, and in fact has generally always been, that speculation is permissible. That is not the same thing as an endorsement and you know it!

If you don't find that scenario compelling, then that's fine, don't believe it. But at least have the decency to recognize that many Christians do hold it.

By the same token you should have the decency to honestly admit that your 'scenario' is permissible speculation that is regarded as, by no means certain, according to the expressed views of the RCC.

Because I've got better, and more relevant things to do. If you'd like to quiz them on that, be my guest. You can start with me - I see Romans 5 literally, and take original sin quite seriously.

The vast majority of theistic evolutionists do not, I think you know that.

Since you understand, do you think it would have been more honest to include that idea out of completeness in your question number 4, which seemed to be trying to make a point as if the Adam/original sin thing hadn't already been solved in the minds of many Christians?

Just as you should include the fact that the RCC holds to an Intelligent Design/creationist view and remind Catholics of this every Easter and at every baptism they perform.

Well, since you asked, I personally see those verses as applicable to creationists, especially those that mock what we've learned from God's other revelation, his creation itself. However, I don't trot those out to attack other Christians.


Papias

Wrong answer! Solomon wrote these admonishments to his son, had you bothered to examine the verse in it's proper context you might have discovered this:

But since you refuse to listen when I call
and no one pays attention when I stretch out my hand, (Proverbs 1:24)

In case you missed it, 'no one', includes you. Same question, different place in the Bible, who are the people described here?

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:21,22)​

I'll give you a heads up here, no self-respecting fundamentalist would dare deny that this is an indictment against them, myself included. So tell me, who is the Apostle Paul talking about here?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Some of the more fringe creationists, like Agonaces of Susa, have claimed man devolved into apes, I am not aware of Mark making any claims like that beyond saying Homo habilis evolved into chimps.

 

[metherion]

Oh, my, I’m going to have FUN with this one.

First off, let’s paraphrase the quote from your first post with one about gravity.

The quote from your first post:

Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered?

Now, for gravity:

GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION governs the INTERACTIONS OF MATTER on this planet that is not an artifact of the earth. GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION is a logic which is applicable to all MATTER that may exist in the universe, even the TYPES we have not yet discovered.

So, WHY is the second not as transcendental as the first?

So you are saying that the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes with regards to the origins and history of all living systems are tantamount to the law of gravity, which does allow for exceptions as do all laws of science. Which by the way, Darwinism contributed no laws of science to Biology. What is more, because Darwinian logic comes before the 'discovery' of life it is before the direct observation of demonstrations of empirical science and is therefor not science but supposition.

Let’s start with that first sentence. First off, Darwinian evolution does NOT address the ORIGIN of life, as you say with

a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes with regards to the origins and history of all living systems

So even if you’re going to try the whole NATURALISTIC ASSUMPTIONS canard, which you seem to like, you should at least get what you’re claiming there are naturalistic assumptions about correct.

Now let’s take a look at your ‘a priori assumptions’. A priori means, of course, from the earlier, and are things assumed before any possible information comes in. You keep calling Darwinian evolution an a priori assumption. This is not valid. Darwinian evolution was realized/discovered/whichever word you wish to use from observations made of the natural world, i.e. NOT ASSUMPTIONS BUT OBSERVATIONS. Therefore, Darwinian evolution CANNOT be an a priori assumption.

Next, you say it’s exclusively naturalistic causes. I assume you are meaning ‘of or according to the philosophy of naturalism’. This is not the case. The PHILOSOPHY of naturalism states that nothing exists except for the natural. SCIENCE, on the other hand, uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, which states that only what is natural can be examined. Completely different things. Darwinian is no more AND NO LESS beholden to an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes than gravity. It is an explanation of the data at hand that only uses natural events to do the explaining. There is a huge difference, and God is perfectly capable of using natural, ‘random’ events to do His will. How was Matthias chosen to replace Judas in the Bible? The casting of lots. That’s just one example.

What WOULD make Darwinian evolution not ‘an a priori assumption of naturalistic causes’, by the way? And how is gravity not also ‘an a priori assumption of naturalistic causes’ itself?


Let’s talk about astrophysics, and gravity, which you seem to have no problem with. Well, you see, gravity in astrophysics is what caused all the stars to form. And the idea of accretion uses the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes, like gravity, to contradict the Bible that God made the heavens and the stars in the heavens. Actually, it was gravity. And since gravity is an a priori assumption that says God didn’t create the stars in the heavens, but gravity and the laws of physics did, how can any good Christian believe in astrophysics and gravity with its a priori assumption of purely naturalistic causes ?


Also, the term ‘law’ of science is now only held on to because it was grandfathered in. Laws are analytical statements, usually if not always equations, with a constant that’s generally been determined empirically. A ‘law’ is beholden to the theory dealing with it. If gravitational THEORY were disproved, out would go the law of universal gravitation. How many laws has CELL THEORY contributed? Germ theory? How many biology laws are there? And since when is contributing a law a requirement for being a valid scientific theory? Since never. Oh, and we know what causes evolution. Perhaps you’ve heard of the Large Hadron Collider? Yeah, it’s because we don’t even know what particle, if any, ‘causes’ gravity, or if the particle THOUGHT to cause gravity even exists.

What exceptions could gravity have? I mean, science uses the A PRIORI NATURALISTIC ASSUMPTION THAT GRAVITY EXISTS AND WORKS ON MASSES to discover planets based on how they make the light wobble when they pass in front of their stars, relative to us. And that’s naturalistic, it assumes God is having no supernatural part, won’t have a supernatural part, and didn’t have a supernatural part. Or dark matter, and the WIMPs. They haven’t been observed, they’ve only been inferred because of the A PRIORI TRANSCENDENTAL ASSUMPTION THAT GRAVITY WORKS ON THEM TOO. The ASSUMPTION of gravity came before the direct observation of dark matter or the empirical study of samples of dark matter, and is therefore not science but supposition.

Furthermore, the equation is called the LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION. It applies to EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. What could be more transcendental than that?

It is represented by a law of science, principles of motion, demonstrations, observations, predictions and empirical testing. Darwinian logic does not rely on such things since it comes before them.

Incorrect. Darwinian logic has been demonstrated on living systems as well as those in computer simulations. It is demonstrated in genomics, in the fossil records, in the twin nested hierarchy, on demonstrations (such as the experiments on bacteria eating citric acid), observations (such as the 29+ instances of speciation that keep getting thrown around), predictions (such as the prediction of where to find fossil species such as Tiktaalik), and empirical testing. It DOES rely on these things because it is evidenced by them, and its job is to explain them.


We don’t even know what causes gravity, while we DO know what causes evolution. Furthermore, there can’t have been empirical testing of gravity on dark matter, because it hasn’t been isolated as such yet, nor on exoplanets, because we haven’t been to a star system that has them to guarantee they still work there! Yet, gravity is one of the reasons exoplanets are considered discovered and dark matter is inferred to exist! And, remember, what’s the law of gravity again?

F= G * m1 * m2 /(d^2)

Well, guess what? Photons have no mass, and yet ARE AFFECTED BY GRAVITY! Doesn’t seem to fit the law, does it? I guess gravity is just an a priori supposition applied to matter we haven’t even confirmed exists, planets we haven’t even confirmed exists, and without a known mechanism. Gravity sucks.

If this kind of transcendence is so clearly demonstrated then why did both Einstein, Hawkins fail to produce a unified field theory?

Because unified field theory isn’t necessary to demonstrate that subatomic particles exist on earth?
Furthermore, understanding is not necessary to transcendental application, as is CLEARLY shown by the fact that without having been to and examined other galactic phenomena such as other stars, neutron stars, and the like, we assume they’re made of atomics and therefore protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, et cetera.

We assume they exist all kinds of places we haven’t been, don’t directly observe... and countless predictions about them have been wrong! I mean, they haven’t found the Higgs Boson yet, have they? We’ve never been to a neutron star or another solar system to check their stars and planets, have we? Yet we assume other STARS and other PLANETS and other PHENOMENA will also be made up of subatomic particles! We’ve never been there, and we are TRANSCENDENTALLY applying our SUBATOMIC THEORY to apply there as an A PRIORI ASSUMPTION! And since SUBATOMIC THEORY leaves no room for God to be doing things and says all matter is held together by the four forces of strong/weak/gravity/electromagnetism, SUBATOMIC THEORY ALSO IS AN A PRIORI ASSUMPTION OF SOLELY NATURALISTIC CAUSES ACCORDING TO YOUR USAGE OF THE TERM!

My goodness, it’s almost like every theory in science holds to methodological naturalism, holds to natural explanations for physical evidence, and no sciences feels free to interject miracles of one specific religion against physical evidence to the contrary over the miracles of OTHER religions! HOW TERRIBLE!


To Papias:

I believe you're incorrect that Mark thinks chimpanzees evolved from humans. The way I have understood his position, especially with respect to the post you presented is this:

Mark appears to believe that there is a great pressure to find human ancestors. Therefore, Mark believes that many human ancestors are ACTUALLY chimpanzee ancestors, mixed up because of the pressure to present more human ancestors. He also believes this pressure to have human ancestors, combined with the pressure to not say anything against the party line on evolution, has coerced thousands or tens of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of researchers of all races, nationalities, and creeds who work at the museums or with the museums as well as those who find things in the field to keep the discovery of said ancestors as chimp ancestors instead of human ancestors quiet despite the incredible amount of prestige, fame, and quite possibly grant money/wealth that would come their way for doing so and proving the prior classifications wrong.

Of course, I think he would phrase the last part differently, as it was a huge, long sentence that shows just how absurd the idea is... but them's the breaks.



Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

So, WHY is the second not as transcendental as the first?

Darwinian logic is an assumption, gravity is a natural phenomenon based on the principles of motion. One is a naturalistic assumption and the other is a law of nature. If there is a law governing ancestral heritage it's Mendelian. Of course you know this but the equivocation fallacy is popular among evolutionists so why make a substantive argument.

Let’s start with that first sentence. First off, Darwinian evolution does NOT address the ORIGIN of life, as you say with

Read the preface of Darwin's Origin of Species. Yes it does, directly address the origin of life.

So even if you’re going to try the whole NATURALISTIC ASSUMPTIONS canard, which you seem to like, you should at least get what you’re claiming there are naturalistic assumptions about correct.

What? It's really simple, if it includes all life, even the ones not discovered. If it includes all periods of history all the way back to the Big Bang. If it excludes God a priori without qualification then it's an assumptions. You know what, if it's such a crucial law of science then why is it that none of you, ever admit to it.

Do you believe it or not?

Now let’s take a look at your ‘a priori assumptions’. A priori means, of course, from the earlier, and are things assumed before any possible information comes in. You keep calling Darwinian evolution an a priori assumption. This is not valid. Darwinian evolution was realized/discovered/whichever word you wish to use from observations made of the natural world, i.e. NOT ASSUMPTIONS BUT OBSERVATIONS. Therefore, Darwinian evolution CANNOT be an a priori assumption.

Ok, you can quit stirring up random terms like they have actual meaning. Let's start for a little exercise for the semantically challenged, define science, evolution and a priori assumption in light of those definitions and I will agree that you are at least applying meaning to the terms you throw around like hand grenades.

Darwinian logic applies to all life, even those 'undiscovered'. Now you tell me how that is based on observation.

Next, you say it’s exclusively naturalistic causes. I assume you are meaning ‘of or according to the philosophy of naturalism’. This is not the case. The PHILOSOPHY of naturalism states that nothing exists except for the natural. SCIENCE, on the other hand, uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, which states that only what is natural can be examined. Completely different things. Darwinian is no more AND NO LESS beholden to an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes than gravity. It is an explanation of the data at hand that only uses natural events to do the explaining. There is a huge difference, and God is perfectly capable of using natural, ‘random’ events to do His will. How was Matthias chosen to replace Judas in the Bible? The casting of lots. That’s just one example.

Latter God choose Paul, just because the Apostles rolled the dice does not mean that Matthias was God's choice. You need to brush up on you Bible study.

What WOULD make Darwinian evolution not ‘an a priori assumption of naturalistic causes’, by the way? And how is gravity not also ‘an a priori assumption of naturalistic causes’ itself?

Start defining your terms, I really have no patience for this kind of circular reasoning. You first use two equivocation fallacies followed closely by a philosophical question without any clearly defined meanings attached to the core terms. You don't just start out with metaphysics, you have to start with epistemology especially when your talking about science. Before you can put together a theory of knowledge you have to define your central terms. Those are the rules so if you want to play then you start by clear, concise terminology.

Let’s talk about astrophysics, and gravity, which you seem to have no problem with. Well, you see, gravity in astrophysics is what caused all the stars to form. And the idea of accretion uses the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes, like gravity, to contradict the Bible that God made the heavens and the stars in the heavens. Actually, it was gravity. And since gravity is an a priori assumption that says God didn’t create the stars in the heavens, but gravity and the laws of physics did, how can any good Christian believe in astrophysics and gravity with its a priori assumption of purely naturalistic causes ?

I don't have a problem with gravity anymore then Newton had a problem with Intelligent Design.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
(Isaac Newton, The Principia)​

A book, that more then any before or since, defined modern science had an intelligent design argument. Now in the name of science this very commonly held view is treated with abject ridicule. It's shameful.

Also, the term ‘law’ of science is now only held on to because it was grandfathered in. Laws are analytical statements, usually if not always equations, with a constant that’s generally been determined empirically. A ‘law’ is beholden to the theory dealing with it. If gravitational THEORY were disproved, out would go the law of universal gravitation. How many laws has CELL THEORY contributed? Germ theory? How many biology laws are there? And since when is contributing a law a requirement for being a valid scientific theory? Since never. Oh, and we know what causes evolution. Perhaps you’ve heard of the Large Hadron Collider? Yeah, it’s because we don’t even know what particle, if any, ‘causes’ gravity, or if the particle THOUGHT to cause gravity even exists.

The 'Laws of Inheritance' are Mendelian and have propelled genetics ahead for over a hundred years:

[indentThe rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same. (Initial sequence of the human genome. Nature, Feb 2001)[/indent]

That's where legitimate natural laws of science come in and none of them contradict Creationism. Creationists have never had a problem with the genuine article of science, just arguments of science, falsely so called.

What exceptions could gravity have? I mean, science uses the A PRIORI NATURALISTIC ASSUMPTION THAT GRAVITY EXISTS AND WORKS ON MASSES to discover planets based on how they make the light wobble when they pass in front of their stars, relative to us. And that’s naturalistic, it assumes God is having no supernatural part, won’t have a supernatural part, and didn’t have a supernatural part. Or dark matter, and the WIMPs. They haven’t been observed, they’ve only been inferred because of the A PRIORI TRANSCENDENTAL ASSUMPTION THAT GRAVITY WORKS ON THEM TOO. The ASSUMPTION of gravity came before the direct observation of dark matter or the empirical study of samples of dark matter, and is therefore not science but supposition.

Exceptions to the laws of science, no matter how rare, are simply exceptions. They have no bearing on Darwinian logic and I think following you down that rabbit hole is a waste of my time and yours. What's your point?

Furthermore, the equation is called the LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION. It applies to EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. What could be more transcendental than that?

Newton was accused of bringing occultic in his reasoning for introducing gravity. He argued that he did so by inductive method not mocking others with an a priori assumption. There were demonstrations regarding velocity, the Y squared, principles of motion and a famous prediction regarding the path of a comet using calculus. That is in a book the had a brief intelligent design argument that mattered to no one then and should be of little interest now. The only reason any inference of God is being mindlessly ridiculed now is because atheists are hostile toward anyone believing in God or any indication of 'proof' regarding God.

They have the same animosity toward the resurrection, are you sure you want to be counted among them?

Incorrect. Darwinian logic has been demonstrated on living systems as well as those in computer simulations. It is demonstrated in genomics, in the fossil records, in the twin nested hierarchy, on demonstrations (such as the experiments on bacteria eating citric acid), observations (such as the 29+ instances of speciation that keep getting thrown around), predictions (such as the prediction of where to find fossil species such as Tiktaalik), and empirical testing. It DOES rely on these things because it is evidenced by them, and its job is to explain them.

Have you read the 29 evidences? But ok, let's try this. If commonality of genetic sequences indicates common ancestry does divergence demonstrate independent lineage. In other words, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious?

We don’t even know what causes gravity, while we DO know what causes evolution. Furthermore, there can’t have been empirical testing of gravity on dark matter, because it hasn’t been isolated as such yet, nor on exoplanets, because we haven’t been to a star system that has them to guarantee they still work there! Yet, gravity is one of the reasons exoplanets are considered discovered and dark matter is inferred to exist! And, remember, what’s the law of gravity again?

F= G * m1 * m2 /(d^2)

Well, guess what? Photons have no mass, and yet ARE AFFECTED BY GRAVITY! Doesn’t seem to fit the law, does it? I guess gravity is just an a priori supposition applied to matter we haven’t even confirmed exists, planets we haven’t even confirmed exists, and without a known mechanism. Gravity sucks.

Simply irrelevant. The only laws that are applicable are the laws of inheritance.

To Papias:

I believe you're incorrect that Mark thinks chimpanzees evolved from humans. The way I have understood his position, especially with respect to the post you presented is this:

Mark appears to believe that there is a great pressure to find human ancestors. Therefore, Mark believes that many human ancestors are ACTUALLY chimpanzee ancestors, mixed up because of the pressure to present more human ancestors....
Of course, I think he would phrase the last part differently, as it was a huge, long sentence that shows just how absurd the idea is... but them's the breaks.



Metherion

Mark believes that there is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes. I have made many arguments along this line using exclusively scientific literature. I have made clear reference to the seminal comparison of Chimpanzee and Human genetics that explicitly states the divergence in percentages and yet, not one of you will admit the explicit findings.

Mark never once suggested that apes evolved from men, in fact, the thought never occurred to me. Mark believes that Papias is trolling the forum and evolutionists on here are encouraging him.

Most importantly, Mark believes the Scriptures tell our true history and Darwinism is a myth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

Darwinian logic is an assumption, gravity is a natural phenomenon based on the principles of motion. One is a naturalistic assumption and the other is a law of nature. If there is a law governing ancestral heritage it's Mendelian. Of course you know this but the equivocation fallacy is popular among evolutionists so why make a substantive argument.

Incorrect. Darwinian evolution is a phenomenon based on imperfect replication, genetics, and selection, gravity is a natural phenomenon based on the principles of motion.


Equivocation? What equivocation have I made? This IS a substantiative argument, your response is what lacks substance. So one deals with bodies, the other with living things. Both are natural phenomena dealing with things found in nature. Your line between them is arbitrary, and deals only with your personal bias, else you would have been able to answer the question. Nothing backs your assertion that Darwinian logic is an assumption when applied to undiscovered life while gravity is not when applied to undiscovered matter.

Asserting something over and over doesn’t make it true.

Read the preface of Darwin's Origin of Species. Yes it does, directly address the origin of life.

Ah, that’s your problem! You think evolution hasn’t changed since when Darwin wrote his book! You have a lot of catching up to do. Or, maybe you could DEFINE YOUR TERMS so we know the discrepancies between what YOU decide you want to call darwinian evolution and what the modern synthesis actually entails. You know, so everyone is clear.

There’s this field called abiogenesis, in biochemistry. THAT has to do with the origin of life. I hear they just made something called XNA which can store genetic data in a similar fashion to DNA. Neat stuff.

What? It's really simple, if it includes all life, even the ones not discovered. If it includes all periods of history all the way back to the Big Bang. If it excludes God a priori without qualification then it's an assumptions. You know what, if it's such a crucial law of science then why is it that none of you, ever admit to it.

So, GRAVITY includes all matter, including life forms, even the ones not discovered. Gravity includes all periods of time back to the Big Bang. Gravity excludes God as much as evolution without qualification. Gravity is an assumption! Your argument.

Do you believe it or not?

Do I believe what? That darwinian evolution is a law? Nope, it's a scientific theory.

Ok, you can quit stirring up random terms like they have actual meaning. Let's start for a little exercise for the semantically challenged, define science, evolution and a priori assumption in light of those definitions and I will agree that you are at least applying meaning to the terms you throw around like hand grenades.

Throwing around random terms? I’m only using the terms YOU tried to introduce. And your ‘define everything’ canard is well known. I've danced this dance in other threads.

Evolution:
What is known as the ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ and all it entails.

Science:
The systematic enterprise of humanity to organize and build knowledge about the natural universe through testable explanations, experiments, and so on.

A priori assumption:
Any assumption taken into account before any data in any argument is looked at.

Now, for YOUR assignment:
Define what YOU meant by science, evolution, a priori, and we’ll see just where the misunderstanding was. But I doubt you will. A hallmark of yours is to call other people out for not defining terms without EVER defining your own. And it’s hilarious because I ONLY USED YOUR TERMS! I guess you must STINK at defining things if you don’t even know what you meant when it’s repeated to you.

Darwinian logic applies to all life, even those 'undiscovered'. Now you tell me how that is based on observation.

Okay.
A) The amount of space on any given planet is finite. Therefore, so are the resources on that planet. If there were an infinite planet it would have infinite mass, therefore infinite gravity, and we wouldn’t exist to have this conversation.
B) Everything that lives needs some amount of finite resources to survive.
C) All observed life, many computer simulations of life, and computer simulations that have nothing to do with life but are for engineering or programming all act the same when when they are built as imperfect replicators undergoing selection.
D) So, if life exists elsewhere as we know it, it would be beholden to the same logic that we have found applies not only to living systems but to nonliving systems.

Now, gravity applies to all matter, even that ‘undiscovered’. Now you tell ME how THAT is based on observation.

Latter God choose Paul, just because the Apostles rolled the dice does not mean that Matthias was God's choice. You need to brush up on you Bible study.

So would you like some other natural means God used?
God sent a wind to part the Red Sea, it didn’t just split for no reason.
God didn’t smite the disrespectful youths who mocked Elijah with fire or spontaneous lightning, He used bears.
Jesus didn’t poof fish into the boat, He caused the nets to be full when they were cast normally, in Luke 5 and John 21.

Start defining your terms, I really have no patience for this kind of circular reasoning. You first use two equivocation fallacies followed closely by a philosophical question without any clearly defined meanings attached to the core terms. You don't just start out with metaphysics, you have to start with epistemology especially when your talking about science. Before you can put together a theory of knowledge you have to define your central terms. Those are the rules so if you want to play then you start by clear, concise terminology.

HAHAHA. I have made no equivocations and introduced no new terms. You are the one who blathers on about how Darwinism is an a priori assumption for dealing with undiscovered life, so why isn’t gravity an a priori assumption for dealing with undiscovered matter?
You call Darwinism naturalistic, so why isn’t gravity? Maybe you should define ‘a priori assumption of naturalistic causes’ and explain why it applies to evolution and NOT gravity.

You could also start by telling me exactly what terms I equivocated between, why it was equivocation, the philosophical question, and why the terms had meaning when YOU used them but not when I used them, since my arguments were constructed in the exact same way yours were.

I don't have a problem with gravity anymore then Newton had a problem with Intelligent Design.

A book, that more then any before or since, defined modern science had an intelligent design argument. Now in the name of science this very commonly held view is treated with abject ridicule. It's shameful.

So let me get this straight. Newton did a lot of math, worked with Kepler’s laws, helped advance human knowledge, and ATTRIBUTED NATURAL PHENOMENA TO GOD WHILE NOT SAYING THAT THEY HAD TO BE MIRACULOUSLY MADE AS THEY WERE BY GOD BUT COULD PROCEED FROM HIS DOMINION OVER THE LAWS NEWTON WAS WORKING ON? Almost like, I don’t know, the way theistic evolutionists view life on earth? WHOA!

Also, modern intelligent design in NOT what you make out Newton to be thinking there. Nice equivocation though. Unless you’d care to define the term because you’re trying to sneakily use a nonstandard meaning, then come back and accuse me of not defining MY terms later? Because that’s TOTALLY not standard operating procedure. (Take knife, cut sarcasm.)

The 'Laws of Inheritance' are Mendelian and have propelled genetics ahead for over a hundred years:

Never heard them called laws before, but hey, I learn something new every day. I heard them called the principle of segregation and the principle of independent assortment.
So, since cell theory and germ theory don’t have laws, I guess they never contributed anything to science then? That’s the final answer? Nice to know.

That's where legitimate natural laws of science come in and none of them contradict Creationism. Creationists have never had a problem with the genuine article of science, just arguments of science, falsely so called.

And the Mendelian laws of inheritance are different than the rest of evolution in biology HOW? They don’t include God or miracles any more than any other part of biology.

Also, how does gravity NOT contradict creationism? Gravity and astrophysics has gravity forming the stars through accretion over vast periods of time, NOT God making them directly in direct creative acts. Sounds like a contradiction to me.

And does creationism only accept laws? What about theories? Does creationism accept germ theory? Cell theory? I also like how creationists get to decide what science falsely called is, alone, without worrying about those pesky scientists who actually DO the relevant science.

Exceptions to the laws of science, no matter how rare, are simply exceptions. They have no bearing on Darwinian logic and I think following you down that rabbit hole is a waste of my time and yours. What's your point?

My POINT is that since gravity applies to EVERYTHING THAT INTERACTS WITH ANYTHING WITH MASS, it has no exceptions, just like evolution would apply to all life MADE UP OF IMPERFECT REPLICATORS SUBJECT TO SELECTION, neither has exceptions, which you seem to insist there are, yet you cannot name any, nor can you explain why the application of gravity to everything, discovered and not is any different except for you saying ‘but it’s different’.

Newton was accused of bringing occultic in his reasoning for introducing gravity. He argued that he did so by inductive method not mocking others with an a priori assumption. There were demonstrations regarding velocity, the Y squared, principles of motion and a famous prediction regarding the path of a comet using calculus. That is in a book the had a brief intelligent design argument that mattered to no one then and should be of little interest now. The only reason any inference of God is being mindlessly ridiculed now is because atheists are hostile toward anyone believing in God or any indication of 'proof' regarding God.

They have the same animosity toward the resurrection, are you sure you want to be counted among them?

So now it’s guilt by association? You seem to think I’m mocking Newton? No. I’m showing the holes in your logic by parody, which works like this:

1) An argument is made.
2) A parody of the argument with the same logic is made.
3) The parody leads to an absurd conclusion.
4) The parody is of the same form as the original argument.
5) Therefore the original argument is flawed.

Now, you are saying that yes, gravity can be shown on observable things, just like evolution can be shown on observable things. But you keep saying that since evolution would be said to apply to undiscovered things, it is transcendental. Now, when I say that gravity applies to undiscovered things, so IT must be transcendental, what do you do? You bring up Newton’s ideas of design and count me with those mocking him? That’s a red herring if I ever saw one.

Have you read the 29 evidences? But ok, let's try this. If commonality of genetic sequences indicates common ancestry does divergence demonstrate independent lineage. In other words, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious?

Yes. And many more. But yes, beyond that.

Commonality of genetic sequences is not the only indicator of common ancestry. Given other evidence of common ancestry, yes, the inverse logic is apparent. Commonality indicates more common ancestry, diverge indicates more independence due to a longer time since the split line.

But, I fully expect you do deny that there are other indications of common ancestry, of course, and make it so that the commonness of genes is the only thing that can figure if two organisms are related, and if there are differences, they must have been made separately, a la creationism. This was pretty transparent.

Simply irrelevant. The only laws that are applicable are the laws of inheritance.

The only laws that are applicable in all of science are the laws on inheritance? What?

So, it doesn’t matter that the particle that causes gravity isn’t known? So it doesn’t matter that the law of gravity DOESN”T indicate how gravity affects non-massed particles? So the fact that gravity is extended to the universe, for all the past of the universe, and directly counters the claim that God made the stars because physics says accretion and gravity made the stars, and the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS MENDELIAN INHERITANCE LAWS?

You have no answers. All you can do is accuse me of equivocation, and not defining terms, when I go out of my way to define what YOUR terms mean in plain english. Unless what the words means, which is what I found, isn’t what you meant, in which case you should define your terms better. You can’t or won’t describe why gravity and the application of gravity to the past and to the undiscovered and the lack of acceptance of miraculous occurrences in gravity is not comparable to the same for darwinian evolution, all you can do is bring up Newton and trying and lump me with the same camp of the people who attacked him on... what connections exactly? I’m still fuzzy on that.

I have made clear reference to the seminal comparison of Chimpanzee and Human genetics that explicitly states the divergence in percentages and yet, not one of you will admit the explicit findings.

That’s because there are different ways of measuring things that yield different results. Maybe if you’d take your own advice and DEFINE YOUR TERMS FOR COMPARISON, you’d get better answers, instead of using loaded questions.

Mark never once suggested that apes evolved from men, in fact, the thought never occurred to me. Mark believes that Papias is trolling the forum and evolutionists on here are encouraging him.

Well, that’s why I tried to correct the misconception. Except for the forgetting you don’t think there is enough time, did I do a decent job of summarizing your opinion? Unless you are just characterizing all evolutionists the same even when we're directly contradicting what you say we are ALL LIKE all the time.


Now... depending on what the reply is, I'm probably done. I fully expect the reply to be more of the same that I called out in this post. If it is, I'm simply going to post that it is and leave the thread, instead of going through it point by point again like I did here.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

Incorrect. Darwinian evolution is a phenomenon based on imperfect replication, genetics, and selection, gravity is a natural phenomenon based on the principles of motion.

No it's not, it's a rejection of special creation in favor of a gradualist natural selection of favored traits. Read the preface and conclusion in On the Origin of Species. The Darwinian Tree of Life is ancestral relationships going all the way back through time and space to the very origin of life. It's metaphysics without rules.

Equivocation? What equivocation have I made? This IS a substantiative argument, your response is what lacks substance. So one deals with bodies, the other with living things. Both are natural phenomena dealing with things found in nature. Your line between them is arbitrary, and deals only with your personal bias, else you would have been able to answer the question. Nothing backs your assertion that Darwinian logic is an assumption when applied to undiscovered life while gravity is not when applied to undiscovered matter.

Your equivocating Darwinian logic with laws of science which is a flawed argument. Natural selection has contributed nothing to the life sciences. It fact it fairs poorly even as science since it is an effect, not a cause.

Asserting something over and over doesn’t make it true.

Right, saying Darwinian logic is science doesn't make it any less erroneous.

Ah, that’s your problem! You think evolution hasn’t changed since when Darwin wrote his book! You have a lot of catching up to do. Or, maybe you could DEFINE YOUR TERMS so we know the discrepancies between what YOU decide you want to call darwinian evolution and what the modern synthesis actually entails. You know, so everyone is clear.

Darwinian logic has not changed since Darwin wrote his book. You should define your terms, I already have and I know exactly what they mean and how they are used scientifically. We are not talking about Darwinian evolution, we are talking about Darwinian logic and that is a prime example of why you need to define your terms. Your equivocating Darwinism with evolution just as you equivocate it with laws of science, both of which are absurd.

There’s this field called abiogenesis, in biochemistry. THAT has to do with the origin of life. I hear they just made something called XNA which can store genetic data in a similar fashion to DNA. Neat stuff.

Abiogenesis is a defunct concept of life coming from non-living material. It's was also called spontaneous generation and there is no such phenomenon in nature. It is only around because if you keep taking Darwinian logic back in infinite regress, that is what would have had to happen. The reason for it is atheistic materialism not a phenomenon in nature.

So, GRAVITY includes all matter, including life forms, even the ones not discovered. Gravity includes all periods of time back to the Big Bang. Gravity excludes God as much as evolution without qualification. Gravity is an assumption! Your argument.

I'm not arguing about gravity, your the one who wants to equivocate it with Darwinism. Personally I don't think for a minute there is the slightest parallel. You made the positive statement so you can develop the argument or abandon it as you see fit.

Do I believe what? That darwinian evolution is a law? Nope, it's a scientific theory.

It fails as a theory as well since it was never demonstrated empirically and there is no null hypothesis unless you want to accept this:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

By the way I know of one:

(Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

Throwing around random terms? I’m only using the terms YOU tried to introduce. And your ‘define everything’ canard is well known. I've danced this dance in other threads.

Others thread where I gladly defined those terms only to end up debating in circles with evolutionists who refused to have their terminology defined.

Define your core terms!

Evolution:
What is known as the ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ and all it entails.

You just used evolution to define evolution, how was evolution defined in the modern synthesis? I'll give you a hint, it was the change of alleles in populations over time according to Ernst Mayr. That is the definition of evolution in the Modern Synthesis and it's 100% consistent with Young Earth Creationism.

Science:
The systematic enterprise of humanity to organize and build knowledge about the natural universe through testable explanations, experiments, and so on.

Testing hypothesis is one methodology. Was there no such thing as science before there was no such thing as empirical testing. Give you a hint, the word literally means 'knowledge'.

A priori assumption:
Any assumption taken into account before any data in any argument is looked at.

Well, you got the 'without prior' right, Kant used the examples of God and time. Empirical science is a postoria.

Now, for YOUR assignment:
Define what YOU meant by science, evolution, a priori, and we’ll see just where the misunderstanding was.

Oh ok, I must be misunderstanding those terms since I'm a Creationist right? Let's discuss this further and come to an agreement about those terms before we start assuming the meanings and assuming I must be ignorant for rejecting Darwinian logic.

So would you like some other natural means God used?
God sent a wind to part the Red Sea, it didn’t just split for no reason.
God didn’t smite the disrespectful youths who mocked Elijah with fire or spontaneous lightning, He used bears.
Jesus didn’t poof fish into the boat, He caused the nets to be full when they were cast normally, in Luke 5 and John 21.

God does things only God can do because He is God. Don't know what to tell you about that if you reject miracles categorically.

HAHAHA. I have made no equivocations and introduced no new terms. You are the one who blathers on about how Darwinism is an a priori assumption for dealing with undiscovered life, so why isn’t gravity an a priori assumption for dealing with undiscovered matter?

Gravity is science because it can be reduced to directly observed or demonstrated tests and proofs. Still think I don't know what the word 'science' really means? Getting any ideas for you own definition?

You call Darwinism naturalistic, so why isn’t gravity? Maybe you should define ‘a priori assumption of naturalistic causes’ and explain why it applies to evolution and NOT gravity.

Because the original question was concerning Darwinian logic not a law of science. If there were a law of science related it would be the laws of inheritance. BTW, gravity addresses cause and effect relationships which you would already know if you had ever bothered to think it through. Instead you are having it spoon fed to you by a creationist something no self-respecting Darwinian would even be able to live with.

You could also start by telling me exactly what terms I equivocated between, why it was equivocation, the philosophical question, and why the terms had meaning when YOU used them but not when I used them, since my arguments were constructed in the exact same way yours were.

I have repeatedly and you continue to argue in circles. Define your core terms and we can talk some more.

The only laws that are applicable in all of science are the laws on inheritance? What?

The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance. How long have you been debating evolution without realizing that the Modern Synthesis is a synthesis of Darwin and Mendel?

That’s because there are different ways of measuring things that yield different results. Maybe if you’d take your own advice and DEFINE YOUR TERMS FOR COMPARISON, you’d get better answers, instead of using loaded questions.

I have and do define my terms, your the one arguing in circles. I count two equivocations, one circular argument and the inevitable ad hominems are coming, they always do.

Well, that’s why I tried to correct the misconception. Except for the forgetting you don’t think there is enough time, did I do a decent job of summarizing your opinion? Unless you are just characterizing all evolutionists the same even when we're directly contradicting what you say we are ALL LIKE all the time.

No, I said there was neither the time nor the means, you have to have both just as you have to have both a cause and effect.

Now... depending on what the reply is, I'm probably done. I fully expect the reply to be more of the same that I called out in this post. If it is, I'm simply going to post that it is and leave the thread, instead of going through it point by point again like I did here.

Metherion

Do what you think is right but if your going to be arguing in circles around false assumptions it's pretty much a waste of time anyway. I would be delighted to argue this formally some time but you are always too busy.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

So, what did you do, in front of everyone?

You continued to tell me I equivocated, without telling me what I was equivocating on.

You didn't address the argument at all, except continuing to assert that gravity was somehow different, and you are a priori waving away all possibility of evolution being actual science

YOu didn't say why gravity is somehow less naturalistic than Darwinian logic or evolution.

Darwinian logic and evolution are somehow now different things, though you've defined neither.

You've confused the modern field of abiogenesis with the old, defunct spontaneous generation, without bothering to try to learn how they are different.

You kept telling me to define my terms even after I did.

You're sticking to Darwin's own words as if no advances in science have been made.

You have nothing. Your argument is nothing. You've not answered any questions, only called them being 'circular' without saying why.

So, as I said at the end of last post, I'm out. You've done nothing but obfuscate and avoid. And seeing more obfuscation and avoidance of the exact type I predicted in my last post multiple times isn't worth my time.

Now, if you ever want to actually level with us and answer those questions, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

Metherion

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Chimps evolving from man? That was what I was referring to as absurd and you always have these silly absurdities weaved into your arguments.

Mark, as you saw from your own words that I quoted back for you, you yourself have claimed that "apemen" with larger brains than chimps devolved into chimps. Now, you still haven't said which you are talking about, but here they are to make it easy for you to clarify what you meant, since I still can't seem to get a straight answer out of you.

So, looking at the graph below, are you saying that Homo habilis is a chimp ancestor? That Homo Erectus is? After all, some Homo Erectus skulls show smaller brains than some Homo Habillis skulls. Or even archaic Homo Sapiens? Wherever you place your line, are you then admitting that those with larger brains are human ancestors?

Assyrian - this is, again, the same discussion you and I had with mark earlier, on this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7587649-4/ Thanks for pointing that out, I'm still trying to find out exactly what mark is proposing.

If your counting method is consistent, you can look up the amount of agreement. There are plenty of other methods too, including counting genes in common, etc. Either way, if you, mark, want to know, just look up what actual scientists have found - they are much better resource than I.
​

I have, what is more I have shown you repeatedly that the only way you can get greater the 98% the same is to not count the indels. You ignore this and continue to chant that it all depends which isn't as absurd as it is just plain wrong.

Well, just go by what the actual geneticists say about counting the indels. You know that neither you nor I are geneticists.


​

I get it from your previous statements. You has stated before that you think that the many transitional human ancestor fossils, which form a clear and compelling history of human evolution, are instead all ancestors of chimps who devolved from ~diluvian humans. And could you answer, please, what is the ancestor of those transitional fossils you say are chimp ancestors? After all, if I got the wrong impression of your beliefs, I'd like to correct that.

I never said or suggested the chimps devolved from diluvian humans, that is not only absurd, it's asinine. The Taung Child and Lucy being two of my primary examples of Chimpanzee ancestors being passed off as human ancestors. Both of those skulls are small even for a modern ape, what is your point? I have also said that modern chimpanzees have devolved from their ancestors but the thought never occurred to me that chimpanzees evolved from humans. The rules of CF bar me from telling you exactly what I think of your childish, inane trolling tactics but you should be ashamed of yourself!

Childish, inane trolling tactics? mark, I've admitted that I don't appear to understand your position. I'm simply asking you to clarify what your position is. I'm sorry you get upset at that.
​

Adam had to be the first human soul, the first true human according to the dogma of the RCC. There is no question about that and you as a Catholic are not allowed to have another view.

Of course.

I have shown you explicit statements of the current Pope with regards to Creation being inextricably linked to salvation, the resurrection and the inescapable historicity of the Genesis narratives.

*Sigh* mark, we've been though this. You have no support from the Pope. You can see our whole debate here, remember? http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/ If you like, you can repost a quote from the Pope asserting that the Genesis story is literal history.

All points of doctrine theistic evolutionists commonly deny, dismissing them as figurative.

Again, I'm waiting for data from you to back this up. For instance, what percentage of theistic evolution supporters (such as the Pope himself) see the resurrection as figurative?

You are very much alone here, theistic evolutionists, by and large, do not share your views.

Again, waiting for supporting data from you. I've asked you, mark, to support this claim with actual data at least three times now, and you still simply make bare assertions, as you so often do in your posts. I know that you appear to think that simply stating something over and over is evidence, but I hate to break it to you that it is isn't .

I have been debated them for six years, I am well acquainted with what they believe and how they argue human ancestry and so are you:

No, I'm not (and neither are you). Of the literally tens of millions of theistic evolution supporters, I've talked with only dozens. My view is non-representative, as is yours.

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. ,..... (Dr. Francisco Ayala)

​

And if that's what you think contradicts the "literal Adam" theistic evolution approach, then you still, after years and literally dozens of posts, don't understand it. Even with a literal, single, historical Adam, the breeding population is never at any time just two individuals - just as all the Jews (indeed, most of the human race today) can be descended from Abraham and Sarah, even though they weren't the only people alive at that time. mark, can you not see that in the foreseeable future, due to interbreeding, every single person on earth could be descended from Abraham and Sarah?

If you do, then you can see why your objection based on Dr. Ayayla's quote is baseless (and to continue to use it would be dishonest). If you don't, then just say so and I'll explain it again - remember the Mayflower discussion?

​

Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts (HG 36)

Please see our debate, linked to above, for the refutation of your misrepresentation of the Holy Father's words in HG 36.
​

Dr. Ayala, someone you cited as an authority flatly denies your theory.

See above. You apparently don't yet understand how ancestry works.

The position of the RCC is, and in fact has generally always been, that speculation is permissible. That is not the same thing as an endorsement and you know it!

Of course - I've never denied that speculation is allowed.

If you don't find that scenario compelling, then that's fine, don't believe it. But at least have the decency to recognize that many Christians do hold it.

By the same token you should have the decency to honestly admit that your 'scenario' is permissible speculation that is regarded as, by no means certain, according to the expressed views of the RCC.

OK, first, then are you admitting that many Christians do hold that position?

Next, the Pope himself has stated that common ancstry of humans, evolving from earlier animals, is "virtually certain". So I have to disagree that you state the RCC has said it is "by no means certain". Come on mark, we've been over that quote too many times to count. Here it is again.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
​

Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

The vast majority of theistic evolutionists do not, I think you know that.

As I've stated before, I don't. And, I'm intelligent enough to know that my personal experience is not a representative sample anyway. Are you?


​

Since you understand, do you think it would have been more honest to include that idea out of completeness in your question number 4, which seemed to be trying to make a point as if the Adam/original sin thing hadn't already been solved in the minds of many Christians?

Just as you should include the fact that the RCC holds to an Intelligent Design/creationist view and remind Catholics of this every Easter and at every baptism they perform.

I'm always honest about the fact that the RCC supports theistic evolution while allowing speculation. Remember our debate? Remember in our debate that I pointed out that "intelligent design" often doesn't equal "creationism", and that the "intelligent design" of many catholics (including Behe) is the same as "theistic evolution"?

mark, do you remember that the intelligent design propoent you had help up as supporting your view is actually supporting theistic evolution?

Wrong answer!

Whatever, mark. You can read those verses to yourself as you wish. I hope they bring you comfort. They are off topic, and if you'd like to start a thread on them, be my guest.


In His name-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark wrote:

Mark, as you saw from your own words that I quoted back for you, you yourself have claimed that "apemen" with larger brains than chimps devolved into chimps.

No I didn't see anything of the sort because I never said anything of the sort. There are no such thing as 'apemen' except in the minds of Darwinians who are overtly hostile to theistic reasoning of any form or fashion. Your trolling tactics might be the source of rep points and 'Thataboys' from you Darwinian cohorts but you lack any substantive arguments so you resort to these fallacious ad hominems in desperation. There is one of you in every thread, your being used.

Now, you still haven't said which you are talking about, but here they are to make it easy for you to clarify what you meant, since I still can't seem to get a straight answer out of you.

I have never been ambiguous about what I believe and I have answered this foolish accusation repeatedly. Chimpanzee ancestors are passed off as human ancestors while their ancestors are in natural history museums marked Homo XXX as a Darwinian ploy to create the illusion of a transitional 'apeman'.

I think you understand this, as a matter of fact, I'm sure your just hurling insults and false accusations because you have nothing else.

So, looking at the graph below, are you saying that Homo habilis is a chimp ancestor? That Homo Erectus is? After all, some Homo Erectus skulls show smaller brains than some Homo Habillis skulls. Or even archaic Homo Sapiens? Wherever you place your line, are you then admitting that those with larger brains are human ancestors?

I didn't say all Homo habilis skulls were apes, they probably are but that depends on which ones we are talking about. So here we go with that asinine Panda's Thumb scattergram you neither understand nor care about.

Now, you tell me which fossils are represented by the green dots and we can talk about hem.

Assyrian - this is, again, the same discussion you and I had with mark earlier, on this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7587649-4/ Thanks for pointing that out, I'm still trying to find out exactly what mark is proposing.

Nonsense, you are trolling the forum plain and simple.

Well, just go by what the actual geneticists say about counting the indels. You know that neither you nor I are geneticists.
​

I have no idea why you posted this in 'indents' and I don't think you know either.

Childish, inane trolling tactics? mark, I've admitted that I don't appear to understand your position. I'm simply asking you to clarify what your position is. I'm sorry you get upset at that.

Trust me when I tell you that you are incapable of upsetting me. You are trolling the forums and have been for some time. You are encouraged to do so by evolutionists who are happy to watch from the cheap seats, I blame them. I have clarified my position in no uncertain terms, so often, I am accused of spamming them. I gave up chasing evolutionist rhetoric years ago, now I just state clear, concise and explicit facts and wait for evolutionists to shoot themselves in the foot contradicting them. It would not be so bad were it not so darn easy.

*Sigh* mark, we've been though this. You have no support from the Pope. You can see our whole debate here, remember? http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/ If you like, you can repost a quote from the Pope asserting that the Genesis story is literal history.

Which Pope is that? I refuted you often made statement that the RCC now supports and endorses evolution. It's just not true and the historicity of Genesis has never been in question in Rome or any of the Churches that are not polluted with secular atheism, aka, Liberal Theology. It is clearly an historical narrative and has always been, and will always be, understood as such. Save your cut and paste links for someone willing to chase your arguments in circles. You were refuted on the various points you failed to support from the Catholic dogma you profess to follow. You should learn your own theology.

Again, I'm waiting for data from you to back this up. For instance, what percentage of theistic evolution supporters (such as the Pope himself) see the resurrection as figurative?

No Christian believes the resurrection to be figurative with the exception of the unbelievers who make vain professions.

From my opening statement in our formal debate:

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)​

Pope Benedict XVI is directly connecting the creation with the resurrection, there is a very good reason for that.

Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI​

First of all since Papias choose the question at hand I expect he has a working definition for 'evolution' with regards to historicity. Darwinian evolution has long been predicated on a cause that is exclusively naturalistic from the 'beginning'. In the words of Charles Darwin:

‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ (Preface, On the Origin of Species)​

Historicity and Christian Theism

Do note my statement is properly quoted, cited and linked unlike you cut and paste links that lead nowhere.

Again, waiting for supporting data from you. I've asked you, mark, to support this claim with actual data at least three times now, and you still simply make bare assertions, as you so often do in your posts. I know that you appear to think that simply stating something over and over is evidence, but I hate to break it to you that it is isn't .

I think what we have here is a classic case of projection, nothing more. I make clear, concise and elaborated statements that bear no marks of ambiguity. What is more they bear no resemblance to the false accusations you make about what my position is. You argue in circles around nothing, setting up strawman arguments you tackle while abandoning the substantive lines of reasoning these forums are supposed to be hosting.

It's called trolling.

No, I'm not (and neither are you). Of the literally tens of millions of theistic evolution supporters, I've talked with only dozens. My view is non-representative, as is yours.

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. ,..... (Dr. Francisco Ayala)​

To date, you are the rare exception to the evolutionist main stream that regards Adam as figurative, both in Genesis and Romans. Where are your cohorts, supporters or those in agreement with you on this point? Theistic evolutionists have argued venomously against me on this point, especially with regards to a literal Adam and original sin. You on the other hand have taken a minority few that has left you in a no man's land where Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists are opposed to various aspects of your position.

Does it get lonely out there all by yourself?

And if that's what you think contradicts the "literal Adam" theistic evolution approach, then you still, after years and literally dozens of posts, don't understand it. Even with a literal, single, historical Adam, the breeding population is never at any time just two individuals - just as all the Jews (indeed, most of the human race today) can be descended from Abraham and Sarah, even though they weren't the only people alive at that time. mark, can you not see that in the foreseeable future, due to interbreeding, every single person on earth could be descended from Abraham and Sarah?

Everyone did descend from two people just as the nation of Israel (I mean modern Hebrews) descended from Abraham and Sarah. I fail to see what kind of a point you are trying to make but are you aware that Sarah was Abraham's cousin?

If you do, then you can see why your objection based on Dr. Ayayla's quote is baseless (and to continue to use it would be dishonest). If you don't, then just say so and I'll explain it again - remember the Mayflower discussion?

There you go calling me a liar again. I will use the same arguments again because there is nothing wrong with them. I understand exactly what Dr. Ayayla is saying and he is saying that there was no Adam that our ancestors always numbered in the hundreds. That is pure, undiluted, unadulterated polygenism and you will be reminded of this again and again because you need to know that you are holding to a position that is continually held in contempt by the evolutionists you admire so earnestly.

Please see our debate, linked to above, for the refutation of your misrepresentation of the Holy Father's words in HG 36.

I do not need your cut and paste link and I'm thoroughly acquainted with the statement made in HG 36:

The encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII was written in 1950 "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine". While the encyclical makes it clear that there is no problem to Catholics to hold opinions of conjecture regarding evolutionary scenarios there was one point of doctrine that they are in no way, at liberty to hold. He first of all advises moderation. While the origin of the body of Adam can be the subject of conjecture it is in no way completely certain.

Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. (Humani Generis 36)​

What the encyclical really says is that Catholics are at liberty to speculate about evolutionary scenarios. This is in no way shape or form a ringing endorsement of evolution as natural history. What was outright condemned as heresy is the belief that Adam and Eve represented a certain number of first parents. This is called polygenism.

Please see HG 37 for the refutation of your misrepresentation of the Holy Father's words in HG 36

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (Humani Generis 37)​

See above. You apparently don't yet understand how ancestry works.

I do know how it works, it's called Mendelian Genetics.

Next, the Pope himself has stated that common ancstry of humans, evolving from earlier animals, is "virtually certain". So I have to disagree that you state the RCC has said it is "by no means certain". Come on mark, we've been over that quote too many times to count. Here it is again.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
​

Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

Yes but polygenism is not permissible, you keep forgetting that. Still think Adam married an Ape?

I'm always honest about the fact that the RCC supports theistic evolution while allowing speculation. Remember our debate? Remember in our debate that I pointed out that "intelligent design" often doesn't equal "creationism", and that the "intelligent design" of many catholics (including Behe) is the same as "theistic evolution"?

Intelligent Design is philosophical, Creationism is theological and theistic evolution is no different then any other form of Darwinism. You hold to none of the above in a consistent and coherent and I say that not to scold you but to warn you, you are all alone out there.

mark, do you remember that the intelligent design propoent you had help up as supporting your view is actually supporting theistic evolution?

I'm aware Behe is not a Creationist, are you aware that Intelligent Design is regarded as a Creationist 'Trojan Horse'? Or that it is the view of the RCC regarding creation?

Whatever, mark. You can read those verses to yourself as you wish. I hope they bring you comfort. They are off topic, and if you'd like to start a thread on them, be my guest.


In His name-

Papias

Well, in that case, thanks for the exchange and I'll be seeing you again.

Grace and peace,
Mark​

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh and BTW...

metherion,

I wonder if you would be interested in a formal debate now that you seem to have some time for one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Mark, as you saw from your own words that I quoted back for you, you yourself have claimed that "apemen" with larger brains than chimps devolved into chimps.

No I didn't see anything of the sort because I never said anything of the sort. There are no such thing as 'apemen' except in the minds of Darwinians who are overtly hostile to theistic reasoning of any form or fashion. Your trolling tactics might be the source of rep points and 'Thataboys' from you Darwinian cohorts but you lack any substantive arguments so you resort to these fallacious ad hominems in desperation. There is one of you in every thread, your being used.

Why shouldn't papias us the term "apemen" (in inverted commas)? It is a term you keep using.

You have describes Homo habilis as a mythical apemen:

There was no "myth of stone age apemen in Kenya".

Yes there is, it's called Homo habilis.

Again, this would have happened, very suddenly about 2.5 million years ago with the transition from Homo habilis (the mythical tool making apeman) and Homo erectus.

You also describe Homo habilis as devolving into chimps:

The Homo habilis specimans are probably prehistoric chimps. Their cranial capacity is consistant with a gradual decline in overall size. They were at one time bipedal from what I gather at least in a limited way. They did not evolve into humans they devolved into modern chimps and bonobos.

Papias was trolling, fallacious ad hominems, and you never said anything of the sort?