• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Win a debate against evolution every time.

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Ah, but remember Mark, darwinian evolutionists say that apes and man have a common ancestor which had a brain half way ape, halfway human... ;)

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Not really, Homo habalis has a cranial capacity will below the cut off for the 'Homo' genus. It's know as the cerebral rubicon. Human ancestors would have had to go from under 600cc on average, immediately followed by Home erectus with a cranial capacity comparable to our own.

There is no transitional, the brain would have had to double in size, pretty much over night.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Typical Darwinian logic. emphasis what we have in common, never account for the requisite molecular mechanisms of highly conserved genes, beg the question of truth on your hands and knees. As long as you never credit God as Creator it doesn't matter what the actual evidence is. It's expected from atheists and agnostics but I have long wondered why theistic evolutionists can promote a philosophy denies God as Creator all the way back to the Big Bang but instead want to continuously ridicule Bible believing Christians.

Which brings me back to my original question, if homology arguments are evidence for common ancestry are differences evidence for independent lineage due to special creation?

Are you taking notes my fellow Creationists, they simply won't admit that what they are calling evolution is not a conclusion based on the evidence, it's an a priori (without prior) assumption. So is this:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:19-20)​

Creationism is not anti-evolution, it's not anti-science, it's mutually exclusive with an priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes, all the way back to the Big Bang and God doesn't get credit for that either. Which leads me to another way to win an argument with an evolutionist, particularly a theistic evolutionist.

If we can't take the witness of Moses and Paul literally when they explicitly state Adam was created the first man, what can we take literally?

If they are Christians they must admit the miracles of the New Testament and must confess Christ as Creator. No Darwinian, no matter how religious would ever admit a miracle. Bear in mind, a confession is an open admission and silence is a clear statement.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KhaosTheory

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2011
542
15
✟828.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The author of the video clip is wrong. There are indeed a vast number of different living organisms on earth...but let evolutionary biologists attempt to transform even one bacterium into another classifiably different organism...over any amount of time and guess what? He will end up with bacteria.

Lenski started with bacteria and saw many changes concerning E. coli. But after all his efforts he still ended with bacteria. Not one of his results were non-bacteria. And that friends, is the stasis observed (& nothing else) that was established by God's Law "after its kind". There has never been an observed change from one type of organism to another...ever.

I know this has been explained to you a multitude of times. The bacteria you are talking about IS ALWAYS going to still be bacteria even 5 billion years from now!!! That's how evolution work!!!

Humans are STILL apes, and we're both STILL mammals, ducks are STILL birds, birds are STILL dinosaurs, and they are both STILL vertebrates, and all vertebrates are STILL eukaryotes.

Do you understand what "nested hierarchy" means?

Evolution NEVER permits anything to change into a fundamentally different type of anything.

Do you even accept that speciation works?

I'd like you to describe speciation for me and tell me whether or not you think we've observed it happening.

Furthermore, the same biologists cannot link the fossils we have genetically. If evolution is true then this should be a rather easy thing. Yet they have been unable to do that either.

The only fossils we haven't been able to genetically link are those that weren't intact enough to measure anything. What do you mean they haven't been able to link them?

Who are you calling chicken? T. rex's closest living relative found on the farm | Science | The Guardian

I can illustrate this truth on many levels. Ex:

Drosophila-phylogeny.gif


After 50,000 generations of the Drosophila Melangaster the now famous experiment yielded many changes, virtually all of which were deleterious, but not one of the results yielded a non-fly. That's because there is no evolution. It doesn't exist. It never did.

Yes, and even if after 500 million years those flies grow a 50ft wingspan, a giant needle-like probosces, claws, and concentrated acid for blood, they will still STILL BE FLIES!!! Just a different species of flies.

Just because it will then be hardly recognizable as a fly doesn't mean it still isn't a descendant of a fly. Likewise birds have changed quite a bit but they are still descendants of dinosaurs and we can prove it.

Nothing will EVER evolve into a "non-whatever it's ancestors were".
Do you understand how evolution works yet?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KhaosTheory

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2011
542
15
✟828.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ok, hang on there. I don't think you realize why I'm a Creationist. It's Romans 5, comparative genomics and the the law of excluded middle. My sole focus is human evolution because that is the only doctrinal issue for the Christian and if Adam was without earthly parents Darwinian evolution is necessarily false. I don't care about chickens with teeth, horses with toes or half life decay rates.

No... that's just faulty logic right there... Even if God did specially create Adam in a garden some 6000 years ago it's still an undeniable fact that God allowed all other life on earth to evolve over a very long time before that.

And it's also an undeniable fact that there were many, many human civilizations already present before Adam showed up.

To deny all of this is to deny all the findings of geology, paleontology, archaeology, and anthropology.

My sole focus is on the a priori assumption of universal common descent as it applies to the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.

There are no a priori assumptions in good science... Just deductions from the available evidence.

Charles Darwin writes:

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)​

That, my friend, is a proposed null hypothesis and such an organ exists. The human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes. I make that statement based on the most current scientific research that has supplied every reason to warrant skepticism and rejection of the insubstantial naturalistic assumptions in TOE.

If by "the most current scientific research" you mean "the latest tweet from Kirk Cameron" then sure...

Evolution Of The Brain - YouTube

I don't care what category you want to list humans in because it's assumed that the closest species has a common ancestor regardless of the evidence. Now why don't you gird up thy loins, so to speak, and answer for the questions I have proposed?

Be advised, that failure to do so is to concede the point as irrefutable. Don't feel bad about it though, not one evolutionist I have encountered has been able to even attempt to answer it because all they would be doing is agreeing with me.

What specific question was that again?
 
Upvote 0

KhaosTheory

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2011
542
15
✟828.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Not really, Homo habalis has a cranial capacity will below the cut off for the 'Homo' genus. It's know as the cerebral rubicon. Human ancestors would have had to go from under 600cc on average, immediately followed by Home erectus with a cranial capacity comparable to our own.

There is no transitional, the brain would have had to double in size, pretty much over night.

This is a well known phenomenon and not an earth-shattering overturning of all of science like you seem to think it is.

Hominid Brain Evolution: Looks Can Be Deceiving

Register for the free site and read the full article... it's worth it.

There's actually a lot of talk about this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Link&db=pubmed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=9660712

Basically the point it that it IS TRUE that our brains developed faster than previously assumed but 2 million years is hardly "overnight" even by evolutionary standards.
 
Upvote 0

Martyrs44

Newbie
Jun 26, 2012
336
6
✟23,051.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I know this has been explained to you a multitude of times. The bacteria you are talking about IS ALWAYS going to still be bacteria even 5 billion years from now!!! That's how evolution work!!!

Humans are STILL apes, and we're both STILL mammals, ducks are STILL birds, birds are STILL dinosaurs, and they are both STILL vertebrates, and all vertebrates are STILL eukaryotes.

Do you understand what "nested hierarchy" means?

Evolution NEVER permits anything to change into a fundamentally different type of anything.

Do you even accept that speciation works?

I'd like you to describe speciation for me and tell me whether or not you think we've observed it happening.



The only fossils we haven't been able to genetically link are those that weren't intact enough to measure anything. What do you mean they haven't been able to link them?

Who are you calling chicken? T. rex's closest living relative found on the farm | Science | The Guardian



Yes, and even if after 500 million years those flies grow a 50ft wingspan, a giant needle-like probosces, claws, and concentrated acid for blood, they will still STILL BE FLIES!!! Just a different species of flies.

Just because it will then be hardly recognizable as a fly doesn't mean it still isn't a descendant of a fly. Likewise birds have changed quite a bit but they are still descendants of dinosaurs and we can prove it.

Nothing will EVER evolve into a "non-whatever it's ancestors were".
Do you understand how evolution works yet?

Having accepting an inadequate definition of evolution to begin with, he doesn't even know how life supposedly evolved through pre-historic times until now. He can't even make the logical connections required of the theory. It's pitiful.
 
Upvote 0

jilfe

Newbie
Jul 4, 2012
117
4
✟22,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is Biblical proof that God did not use evolution to take the place of His Creation method.

One has only got to read it for themselves, God wrote it down day by day, moment by moment activities, to show us He did it Creative way.

God wrote it down for us so we don't mess it up, with all the worldly thinking.

However God has set the physics laws in motion to make it look like evolution, to those who are wanting to reject God.

God is not a deciever, but He gives oppurtunities for those who reject God to have a reason to reject God.

Look at the account in Genesis chapter 1 and 2:

16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
 
1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
 
Now God placed in the garden a tree ,that God specificaly spoke about, given instructions of what it is about and what to do with this tree, to the man.

Later the enemy came and suggested to the woman, that God didn't mean what He said, sure He said thus and so, but He knows youll be like Him, ect.....

That's what is going on with theistic revolution, it is God allowing His people to be tested, to train us how to stand with Him, based on what He has made it plain to us about.

God made His Creation to look like evolution to those who are perishing, not for His own children to get caught up in.
It is a trap that God has placed to catch those who have chosen to reject God on all fronts, so that He may catch them in there craftiness.

This phrase can be proven throughout scripture, from genesis to revelation.

God put the oppurtunity foer adam to disobey God in the garden, God brought about natural severe weather to drive jacob into egypt, for God's promise to Abraham, God used His method of delivering the israelites, in such away that the hardness of pharoes heart to disobey God can be realized,
God raised up pharoe in the apointed time, to fullfill God's purpose and promise to Abraham.

God made the deliverance of israel, to work in such away, that gave another oppurtunity for pharoe to harden his heart one last time.

God provides oppurtunities for people who have chosen to reject Him, to believe a lie, if that's what they want then God sends them oppurtunities to go that direction.

It is all through scripture how God does these things.

According to scripture, God does not set traps, but provides oppurtunities for those who reject Him, to go there way of disbelief, becoming trapped in a delusion.

Heres why Creation account, wins over the revolution debate.

All this can be read from scriptuere, that God has plainly given to all who desire to know the Truth.
To those who are perishing, it is suppose to look as foolishness to them, it's not intended for His own children, to look at it as foolishness.

Scripture says so.

Here it is:
All creation was done supernaturally, God is not subject to the laws of physics, He created all the laws, He's above it all.

Scripture can back it up.

Light does not have to obey the laws of physics when God spoke light to be,
when God chose for stars to be made to give light upon the earth, the laws of physics were not operational, the chosen will of God was operating.
He wills it to be and it is.

Scripture backs it up.

The whole creation account was done supernaturally, it is written down for everyone to look at and read it for themselves.

To explain the origins of everything is impossible, because God is eternal, has no beginning, according to scripture, so just as we cannot explain how God has no beginning, scientifically, we also cannot explain how God made everything, scientifically, because according to scripture,

God did not use scientific means to bring about a supernatural result, it was all by His Word.
The only scientific evidence we have to work with, is after everything was made, then the God created physics of natural law were put in place, after God rested from all His Supernatural work.
This is not a personal belief, but a proven scriptural truth that anyone can read, as God gave the day by day acount for our benefit.

This is not to say that Christians who follow theistic revolution, are rejecting God, but rather to suggest look at God's character through scripture, how He provides oppurtunities for those who are not His people to reject Him with harden hearts, and closed minds.

And how He deals with His own children to keep them protected in His loving care and protecting there hearts and minds.

In conclusion:
To explain the origins of everything is impossible, because God is eternal, has no beginning, according to scripture, so just as we cannot explain how God has no beginning, scientifically, we also cannot explain how God made everything, scientifically, because according to scripture,
God did not use scientific means to bring about a supernatural result, it was all by His Word.
 
 
 
Upvote 0

samaus12345

Newbie
Jun 28, 2012
629
6
Australia
✟23,736.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Papias.

Gene duplication/poly ploidy are NOT new 'information'. They are NOT new functionally sequenced base pairs coding for new functional proteins. A mutation that does this has NEVER been observed. It would violate the conservation of energy, ie getting something for nothing. If you want to claim it has been (contrary to what the worlds unofficial preacher for neodarwinian delusion/hypothesis knows-that it, at the very least hasnt (Richard Dawkins), please provide the PEER REVIEWED literature, not some ignoramus blog/video/etc.

Common descent=neodarwinain delusion/hypothesis, look at Darwins tree of life/phylogenetic tree.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See that 'common ancestor'? Its a PROKARYOTE/A CARBON ATOM ~3.5 billion years ago lmao.

Creation

"In the beginning God created" Garden of eden/temptation by satan/fall of man/expulsion from the garden ~6,000 years ago.Noahs WORLD WIDE flood ~4,500 years ago, Jesus ~2,000 years ago.

Fall of man predicts-disease,suffering,rejection of God,genetic ENTROPY (not the myth that we are 'evolving'/heading upwards), created 'kinds' NOT speciating (which does NOT produce new 'information') into other 'kinds'.

Noahs flood predicts- things getting KILLED all at once and getting buried(life 'imploding' not the myth of life 'exploding') hence the fossils everywhere (which are used as evidence AGAINST God/the bible/for evolution when they ARE evidence of God/the bible), significant SPECIATION within 'kinds' (which is used AS 'evidence' for 'evolution'/against God)

Tower of Babel predicts-language barriers/genetic drift/speciation event for mankind.


Have you read origin of species y/n?

What do you believe Adam and Eve were? Amoebas? Chimpanzees? This makes me SICK but please say.

Please present the theistic evolution 'model' for critique/prompt destruction.

Thank you ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KhaosTheory

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2011
542
15
✟828.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Having accepting an inadequate definition of evolution to begin with, he doesn't even know how life supposedly evolved through pre-historic times until now. He can't even make the logical connections required of the theory. It's pitiful.

I know that when you lie you think you are doing it for a good reason but lying for God is still lying.

Think about it for a minute. Do you really think God wants you to lie to others and yourself just to preserve your narrow interpretation of his word?

Unlike you, I don't have to trick myself into believing stuff or willfully ignore all evidence just to allow my beliefs to match with reality.
 
Upvote 0

Martyrs44

Newbie
Jun 26, 2012
336
6
✟23,051.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I know that when you lie you think you are doing it for a good reason but lying for God is still lying.

Think about it for a minute. Do you really think God wants you to lie to others and yourself just to preserve your narrow interpretation of his word?

Unlike you, I don't have to trick myself into believing stuff or willfully ignore all evidence just to allow my beliefs to match with reality.

No, I am not lying nor will I back down to you. Not an inch.

If you think you can give evidence of an example that any organism can/is/will change into a classifiaby different organism by empircal investigation then do it.

Ex. demonstrate by observation in human history that any form of bacteria ever changed into non-bacteria.

Demonstrate that by observation that any form of bird became a dinosaur.

Demonstrate that any form of rodent or small creature evolved into a bat.

I can go on but that should be enough.

Now stop calling me a liar and put your money where your keyboard is. AND...I am not talking about clever artist conceptions. I want to see the real deal. I don't want your opinions, I want facts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Gene duplication/poly ploidy are NOT new 'information'. They are NOT new functionally sequenced base pairs coding for new functional proteins.

Sure they are. That's exactly what they are. They code for new proteins, you can read the papers below.

A mutation that does this has NEVER been observed.

Sure it has. Not only are there papers below as you requested, but you can see from the reference in them that there are many more examples as well, and that this is common knowledge among the experts in genetics. Like beneficial mutations by other mechanisms, plenty have been observed.


It would violate the conservation of energy, ie getting something for nothing.

False. Information is not energy. You don't seem to understand that the first law of thermodynamics applies to energy, not information - and even it if did, life works by constantly using energy anyway, so even if it did add energy, the energy would be available.


please provide the PEER REVIEWED literature, not some ignoramus blog/video/etc.


Gene regulatory network growth by duplication - Nature Genetics

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bbb1961/39/6/39_6_1219/_article

Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes

Duplication-degeneration as a mechanism of gene fission and the origin of new genes in Drosophila species - Nature Genetics

Have you read origin of species y/n?

Most of it, but not all. Why would that be important? Darwin was right about some things, and wrong about some things. Ideas are tested by their predictions, not by who made them.

What do you believe Adam and Eve were? Amoebas? Chimpanzees? This makes me SICK but please say.

Please present the theistic evolution 'model' for critique/prompt destruction.

One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution. It is supported by writings from the Pope and others (including Protestants such as the biologos group, www.biologos.org ).

Why would another Christian interpretation of Christian scripture, which is compatible with the discoveries of Christians and the current consensus of millions of scientists, including millions who are Christians, make you sick?

Papias

jilfe, I see you are back. Could you answer my question to you in response to your post, from back at post #26? It was:

Jilfe wrote:

Please
show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate God using evolution with these versus written in Genesis?

That sounds like you are expecting your Bible to be a science book, which sets Christianity up to look bad, unless, of course, you can show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate diseases being caused by germs with any of the verses of scripture, and unless you can show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate the Earth being a sphere with any of the verses of scripture, and unless you can show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate the moon being held in palce by gravity with any of the verses of scripture.

****************************************


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Martyrs44

Newbie
Jun 26, 2012
336
6
✟23,051.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Look what creationism did to this guy:

Why I am no longer a Christian. - YouTube

He turned his back on Christ solely because of the lies that were told to him when he was younger.

Would he still be following Christ if he had received an honest scientific education about God's creation? I think so.

That's his problem. He didn't take thing to the bottom line. I did. So did many thousands of others.

We all know what Orwellianized education did to millions like yourself. You don't even recognize that you've been led by the nose into deep error.

.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, I am not lying nor will I back down to you. Not an inch.

If you think you can give evidence of an example that any organism can/is/will change into a classifiaby different organism by empircal investigation then do it.

Ex. demonstrate by observation in human history that any form of bacteria ever changed into non-bacteria.

Demonstrate that by observation that any form of bird became a dinosaur.

Demonstrate that any form of rodent or small creature evolved into a bat.

I can go on but that should be enough.

Now stop calling me a liar and put your money where your keyboard is. AND...I am not talking about clever artist conceptions. I want to see the real deal. I don't want your opinions, I want facts.

The real problem is not in bacteria becoming Eukaryotes (literally requiring an exponential expansion of the genome), evolution of dinosaurs to birds or any of the other irrelevant naturalistic assumptions made by evolutionists. 2 million years ago our ancestors would have had brains about three times smaller then our own. In order for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes certain genes that are highly conserved would have had to undergo a dramatic overhaul. When there is a mutation in a brain related gene it's always deleterious (harmful) and a change in this one would have been lethal:

I'll sum it up for you as briefly as I can:

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change , with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor. Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago (Nature, September 14, 2006)​

This gene which is involved in the development of the fetal brain from week 7 to 19 would have been virtually unchanged for 310 million years. Then, about 2 million years ago it changes 18 nucleotides in the three dimensional structure to produce the human brain from that of apes.

You should understand, evolutionists haven't got a clue how this is even remotely possible. They don't care about bacteria in the primordial earth or dinosaurs. Those things are literally buried in the distant past and there is nothing you can do to disprove what they are saying about them, so they can argue in circles endlessly. Living systems are very different, we have them here with us and research in this field is extensive and ongoing.

I asked your debate buddy there about the comparison of chimpanzee and human genomes, he quickly changed the subject. They always do because they haven't got a clue. This is the period of time where this dramatic giant leap of evolution would have had to occur, the transition from Homo habilis (amazing how he got that name btw) and Homo erectus.

Early Ancestors:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

(Source: Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc​

(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)

I was expecting something a whole lot more difficult when I started looking into these things. What I found is that the truth is actually pretty simple, only the way they bury the truth is complicated.

Bear it in mind brother because I promise you, they haven't got an argument for this one because they haven't got a clue.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Martyrs44

Newbie
Jun 26, 2012
336
6
✟23,051.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
The real problem is not in bacteria becoming Eukaryotes (literally requiring an exponential expansion of the genome), evolution of dinosaurs to birds or any of the other irrelevant naturalistic assumptions made by evolutionists. 2 million years ago our ancestors would have had brains about three times smaller then our own. In order for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes certain genes that are highly conserved would have had to undergo a dramatic overhaul. When there is a mutation in a brain related gene it's always deleterious (harmful) and a change in this one would have been lethal:

I'll sum it up for you as briefly as I can:
The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change , with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor. Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago (Nature, September 14, 2006)
This gene which is involved in the development of the fetal brain from week 7 to 19 would have been virtually unchanged for 310 million years. Then, about 2 million years ago it changes 18 nucleotides in the three dimensional structure to produce the human brain from that of apes.

You should understand, evolutionists haven't got a clue how this is even remotely possible. They don't care about bacteria in the primordial earth or dinosaurs. Those things are literally buried in the distant past and there is nothing you can do to disprove what they are saying about them, so they can argue in circles endlessly. Living systems are very different, we have them here with us and research in this field is extensive and ongoing.

I asked your debate buddy there about the comparison of chimpanzee and human genomes, he quickly changed the subject. They always do because they haven't got a clue. This is the period of time where this dramatic giant leap of evolution would have had to occur, the transition from Homo habilis (amazing how he got that name btw) and Homo erectus.

Early Ancestors:
A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

(Source: Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc
(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)

I was expecting something a whole lot more difficult when I started looking into these things. What I found is that the truth is actually pretty simple, only the way they bury the truth is complicated.

Bear it in mind brother because I promise you, they haven't got an argument for this one because they haven't got a clue.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thanks for the statistics, Mark. That was good documentation. I will adopt it and challenge him to answer this.
 
Upvote 0

jilfe

Newbie
Jul 4, 2012
117
4
✟22,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hello,

According to the Holy Bible:

The whole creation account was done supernaturally, it is written down for everyone to look at and read it for themselves.

To explain the origins of everything is impossible, because God is eternal, has no beginning, according to scripture, so just as we cannot explain how God has no beginning, scientifically, we also cannot explain how God made everything, scientifically,

because according to scripture,

God did not use scientific means to bring about a supernatural result, it was all by His Word.

The only scientific evidence we have to work with, is after everything was made, then the 'God created physics of natural laws' were put in place, after God rested from all His Supernatural work.

Then we can use the science He gave us to learn of His ways for us to benefit our lives in the present.
We need the physics laws intact to be able to do the things God gave us as humans, we can't do miracles, so God gave us physical laws to work under, to help us live our lives to His fullest for each generation.


This is not a personal belief, but a proven scriptural truth that anyone can read, as God gave the day by day acount of His Supernatural workis for our benefit.

The speed of light was not needed when God put the stars in the heavens, because God willed that they would imediatly shed light upon the earth.

All through scripture God shows us He does things outside of natural physical laws, called miracles.

And All scripture proves to this Truth that everything came into being by the Word of God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Metal Minister

New Year, Still Old School!
May 8, 2012
12,142
591
✟37,499.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
jilfe said:
Hello,

According to the Holy Bible:

The whole creation account was done supernaturally, it is written down for everyone to look at and read it for themselves.

To explain the origins of everything is impossible, because God is eternal, has no beginning, according to scripture, so just as we cannot explain how God has no beginning, scientifically, we also cannot explain how God made everything, scientifically,

because according to scripture,

God did not use scientific means to bring about a supernatural result, it was all by His Word.

The only scientific evidence we have to work with, is after everything was made, then the 'God created physics of natural laws' were put in place, after God rested from all His Supernatural work.

This is not a personal belief, but a proven scriptural truth that anyone can read, as God gave the day by day acount for our benefit.

The speed of light was not needed when got put the stars in the heavens, because God willed that they would imediatly shed light upon the earth.

All through scripture God shows us He does things outside of natural physical laws, called miracles.

And All scripture proves to this Truth that everything came into being by the Word of God.

AMEN! Well said, and welcome to the forum!

May God Richly Bless You! MM
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Thanks for the statistics, Mark. That was good documentation. I will adopt it and challenge him to answer this.

Good luck with that but if your really interested in that line of argumentation you'll find more material earlier in the thread. They don't have an answer for it and invariably they will turn the debate toward you. Biting personal remarks are the mark of Darwinians because they can't argue based on the actual evidence. They are desperately afraid that Creationists will finally learn the truth regarding the fossil record and genetics. Try asking him where the chimpanzee ancestors are, you might do a little study on the Taung Child and Lucy because they both had Chimpanzee sized brains.

Like i have always said, genetics is the prize.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Martyrs44

Newbie
Jun 26, 2012
336
6
✟23,051.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Hello,

According to the Holy Bible:

The whole creation account was done supernaturally, it is written down for everyone to look at and read it for themselves.

To explain the origins of everything is impossible, because God is eternal, has no beginning, according to scripture, so just as we cannot explain how God has no beginning, scientifically, we also cannot explain how God made everything, scientifically,

because according to scripture,

God did not use scientific means to bring about a supernatural result, it was all by His Word.

The only scientific evidence we have to work with, is after everything was made, then the 'God created physics of natural laws' were put in place, after God rested from all His Supernatural work.

Then we can use the science He gave us to learn of His ways for us to benefit our lives in the present.
We need the physics laws intact to be able to do the things God gave us as humans, we can't do miracles, so God gave us physical laws to work under, to help us live our lives to His fullest for each generation.


This is not a personal belief, but a proven scriptural truth that anyone can read, as God gave the day by day acount of His Supernatural workis for our benefit.

The speed of light was not needed when God put the stars in the heavens, because God willed that they would imediatly shed light upon the earth.

All through scripture God shows us He does things outside of natural physical laws, called miracles.

And All scripture proves to this Truth that everything came into being by the Word of God.

Thanks, Jilfe. I agree.
 
Upvote 0