A Pondering of the Peculiar (3)

[GenemZ]

Laryngeal nerve - RationalWiki

The best that creationists can do is to point out that it has other functions. Of course that still ignores the point that those functions would be better served if the nerve followed a straight path.

Fish do not have necks... minor detail.

 

[GenemZ]

Open up your mind a little bit and when you learn you will not receive that sort of answer. Of course the problem is that if you learn how evolution works there is an extremely strong chance that you will accept it.

Want to see a Creationist act like an Evolutionist? Watch them try to refute the Gap understanding that is found in the Hebrew of the Creation account. Its also the understanding that Evolutionists wish always to distance themselves from.

I have yet to find an evolutionist who can refute it. Young earth creation is based upon some unsupportable premises. Yet, the Gap, when its understood with some depth, fits the data evolutionists wish to vaunt. And, does so even better than your theory puts forth. It easily explains the reason for missing links, and why we see entirely new species popping up en mass.

Open mind? Young earth creationists and evolutionists are the same way. Both of you desire mental fist fights, not coming to truth. To see which one can out wit the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Want to see a Creationist act like an Evolutionist? Watch them try to refute the Gap understanding that is found in the Hebrew of the Creation account. Its also the understanding that Evolutionists wish always to distance themselves from.

I have yet to find an evolutionist who can refute it. Young earth creation is based upon some unsupportable premises. Yet, the Gap, when its understood with some depth, fits the data evolutionists wish to vaunt. And, does so even better than your theory puts forth. It easily explains the reason for missing links, and why we see entirely new species popping up en mass.

Open mind? Young earth creationists and evolutionists are the same way. Both of you desire mental fist fights, not coming to truth. To see which one can out wit the other.

Yes, I would like to see a creationist argue honestly for once.

The "Gap" may not have been refuted because there is not "There there." I have never seen the so called Gap laid out in what it claims. If no one bothers to say exactly what the Gap is it is not possible to debunk it.

For example if I claim that I can fly across the street but give no evidence nor tell how I would do it you would not be able to debunk that claim. If I said I could do it by flapping my arms you could debunk it. If I showed a small portable helicopter that I owned you might even admit that it was possible.

Without details no one can debunk your nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fish do not have necks... minor detail.

Which is why the layout works better for them than it does for us.

Thank you for admitting creationists have no explanation for a bad "design" feature.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Example?... (I always like to learn).

Dogs from wolves. Only a small population of wolves were the ancestors of dogs, so even if that kind of wolf has since gone extinct, there was likely a period of time when both that kind of wolf and the first dogs were both alive.

If populations of a species become isolated from one another, one population can remain the same species while the other (if in a different environment) can eventually evolve into a different species.

 

[GenemZ]

Yes, I would like to see a creationist argue honestly for once.

The "Gap" may not have been refuted because there is not "There there." I have never seen the so called Gap laid out in what it claims. If no one bothers to say exactly what the Gap is it is not possible to debunk it.

Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was desolate and empty, darkness
was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God
was hovering over the waters.
​

The translation ...desolate and empty;... is yet mild compared to what the ancient Hebrew speaking reader saw in the text.


God did not originally (in the beginning -Gen 1:1) create the world as a chaotic mess. Not one laying in wreak and ruin, with having an eerie sense of emptiness draping over it having the feeling of the aftermath of Hiroshima after the bomb's explosion settled. The earth was created in the *beginning.* later on (Genesis 1:2) we find that it has become something that it was not created as being. Ruined and desolate.

Jeremiah was giving a warning about God's destruction of the apostate Jews who were openly having pagan sex rituals while sacrificing their children in fire. Jeremiah chose the same exact Hebrew words to be found in Genesis 2. Genesis 1:2 is not speaking of a simple act of creation.

For, they all knew that Genesis 1:2 was giving them a panoramic view of an utterly destroyed planet. A sign of God's anger.

Toho wabohu appears only twice in the OT. Genesis 1:2. And, Jeremiah 4:23. Its not a coincidence.

Jeremiah 4:23-24


I looked at the earth,
and it was desolate and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.

I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
​

To warn them of how they were teetering on their own destruction Jeremiah took them right back to Genesis 1:2!


Young earth creationists can be notoriously weak on the original languages. It one reason they are young earthers. They may not connect with what Jeremiah was saying. But, the Jews who intimately knew Hebrew, certainly did. That is what Jeremiah had to add something after his warning. That God would not utterly destroy them. For,they knew that was what had taken place in Genesis 1:2.

Jeremiah added...

Jeremiah 4:27


For thus says the Lord,
“The whole land shall be a desolation,
Yet I will not execute a complete destruction.


​

The Jews knew of the severity of the warning Jeremiah was giving them when he spoke of Genesis 1:2. That is why Jeremiah had to add that. Telling them that unlike the state of the earth found in Genesis 1:2, in their case, God would not utterly destroy them. The some Jews as a people would survive.

Genesis 1:2 was the aftermath of a complete destruction of a previous creation. One that was on the face of the prehistoric earth. That is why we see such different types of lifeforms in the fossil evidence. Yet, God even back then God still worked with the same genetic type of structuring of biological life. Including a humanoid type creature that Jeremiah alludes to as well. What we commonly refer to as the cave man.

Its in the Scripture. Been there long before Darwin was born. And, what I just presented is only a tip of the iceberg.

 

[Loudmouth]

I saw that. In effect it was a book for elementary school children.

It would appear that even that level of science is above you.

Put in simple terms for us morons. Just that sentence, please. Let's see how smart you really are. Can't do it?

The chances that separately created species would fall into a single or very few phylogenies by chance is so small that the hypothesis of evolution passes the statistical test. That is what it means. If evolution did not happen, then we would expect to have many possible phylogenies with no statistical significance between them, just as we would see if we compared playing cards or automobiles.

Let's use playing cards as an example. You make your first division by splitting them into red and black cards. You could also make your first division by separating them into suits, or by rank. Each of those choices is entirely subjective. For biology, this isn't the case. There are objective divisions in biology, such as vertebrates and non-vertebrates. Some characteristics are of much more importance than others. Having a vertebral column is a much more important defining characteristic than whether you lay eggs or have a placenta.

To use a non-biological example of phylogenies, no one would claim that Portuguese is more like German than it is Spanish. That is because Spanish and Portuguese share a much more recent common ancestral language than all three do. They are objectively more similar.

 

[GenemZ]

The chances that separately created species would fall into a single or very few phylogenies by chance is so small that the hypothesis of evolution passes the statistical test.

According to the frame of reference of the ones doing the calculating?
Of course!

Yet.. Statistically, between me and my horse? We each have three legs.

Common sense alone tells you that what we find in the intricacies and interdependence of complexities of the genetics, that it just could not have happened by chance. Statistically its near impossible. Those statistics you ignore.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to the frame of reference of the ones doing the calculating?
Of course!

Why don't you demonstrate that their calculations are wrong.

Yet.. Statistically, between me and my horse? We each have three legs.

Humans and horses are in the same kind. We are both mammals.

Eutheria

Common sense alone tells you that what we find in the intricacies and interdependence of complexities of the genetics, that it just could not have happened by chance. Statistically its near impossible. Those statistics you ignore.

You haven't shown me any statistics to ignore. You are once again blowing hot air. All empty assertions, and zero evidence.

 

[GenemZ]

Why don't you demonstrate that their calculations are wrong.

Did I say the calculations are wrong?

Humans and horses are in the same kind. We are both mammals.

Yes... that is true.

You haven't shown me any statistics to ignore. You are once again blowing hot air. All empty assertions, and zero evidence.

Statistics are not the final say. They can be helpful. But, you are acting like they are God, or something. What's with that?

 

[GenemZ]

.....No takers?


The GAP understanding in creation is one showing that this world we now live in is not the first created world ever to have covered the surface of this planet. That there had been prehistoric worlds that were destroyed by God and buried beneath us.


.....Why no takers?

Here it is again:

Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was desolate and empty, darkness
was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God
was hovering over the waters.
​

The translation ...desolate and empty;... is yet mild compared to what the ancient Hebrew speaking reader saw in the text.


God did not originally (in the beginning = Gen 1:1) create the world as a chaotic mess. Not one of laying in wreak and ruin, with also having an eerie sense of emptiness draped over it, giving the feeling of the aftermath of burned out Hiroshima after the bomb's explosion settled down. The earth was created by God in the *beginning.* Some time later on (Genesis 1:2) we find that it has become something that it was not created as being. It had become a massive ruin and desolation.

Jeremiah was giving a Israel warning about God's destruction of the apostate Jews. They had been openly saturating themselves in pagan sex rituals which included sacrificing their children in fire. God was angry with Israel. Jeremiah spoke the same exact Hebrew words to be found in Genesis 2. Genesis 1:2 was not speaking simply about an act of creation. It was about judgment and severest kind of punishment.

The Jews having grown up being taught the Torah from their youth, all knew that Genesis 1:2 was giving them a panoramic view of an utterly destroyed earth. That it was a sign of God's anger.

The Hebrew words Toho wabohu appears only twice in the OT. In Genesis 1:2. And, Jeremiah 4:23. Its not a coincidence.

Jeremiah 4:23-24

I looked at the earth,
and it was desolate and empty; (Genesis 1:2)
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone. (darkness covered the earth)

I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.

​

Jeremiah prophesied as to warn them of how they were teetering on the precipice their own destruction. To show them how serious it was, Jeremiah took them right back to Genesis 1:2!


Proponents of young earth creationists for the large part are notoriously weak in the original languages of Scripture. They lean upon the King James or some other generic mainstream translation. It is one reason they remain young earthers. They can not connect with what Jeremiah was saying. And, most likely were never taught about Jeremiah.

But, back then, the Jews intimately knew Hebrew certainly did. That is why Jeremiah had to add something after his warning. That God would not utterly destroy them. For in Genesis 1:2 the earth lay utterly destroyed. They knew that was what had taken place in Genesis 1:2.

So, Jeremiah added...

Jeremiah 4:27

For thus says the Lord,
“The whole land shall be a desolation,
Yet I will not execute a complete destruction.


​

The Jews knew of the severity of the warning Jeremiah was giving them, when he referred to Genesis 1:2. That is why Jeremiah had to add an addendum. Telling them, that unlike the the earth found in Genesis 1:2. In their case. God would not utterly destroy them as a people. The some Jews as a people would survive to perpetuate their people.

Genesis 1:2 was in a state of the aftermath of a complete and utter destruction of the previous creation. One that had been on the face of the prehistoric earth. That is why we see such different types of lifeforms in the fossil evidence. Yet, as found in the fossil remains, God worked with the same genetic type of structuring of biological life as He continues to for this creation. The prehistoric world included a humanoid type creature. One that Jeremiah alluded to as well. What we commonly refer to today as the cave man. It was a very high order of animal, though. It had not been created in God's image as man is today.

What I just presented is found in Scripture. Been there for a very long time. It was there long before Darwin was born. So the Bible was not re-written to accommodate the theory of evolution, as some claim when trying to block the GAP understanding.

And, what I just presented is only a tip of the iceberg in understanding prehistoric life. It also shows reasons why there were different ages.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did I say the calculations are wrong?

You certainly insinuated it. Are you agreeing that the calculations support evolution?

Statistics are not the final say. They can be helpful. But, you are acting like they are God, or something. What's with that?

I am acting like statistics are God? Really?

"Common sense alone tells you that what we find in the intricacies and interdependence of complexities of the genetics, that it just could not have happened by chance. Statistically its near impossible. Those statistics you ignore."--genez

You accuse me of ignoring statistics the prove me wrong, and when challenged to produce these statistics you fail to do so, and turn right around and claim that statistics don't mean anything. Why the about-face?

 

[Loudmouth]

.....No takers?

No evidence?

 

[PsychoSarah]

No evidence?

To be honest, I lost track of what was being talked about.

 

[GenemZ]

You certainly insinuated it. Are you agreeing that the calculations support evolution?

In a marketing sense, the calculations could be used to try to promote your theory.

You accuse me of ignoring statistics the prove me wrong, and when challenged to produce these statistics you fail to do so, and turn right around and claim that statistics don't mean anything. Why the about-face?

You really ought to get that martyr target taken off your tee shirt. You keep interjecting intents that I do not present to you. I just simply stated that the statistics you speak of do not show anything conclusive in regards to your desired outcome. It does though, conclusively show that the same genetic format has been used throughout the various creations this planet has been host to. Thanks for that much.

 

[GenemZ]

No evidence?

No takers. Only fakers.

Just the same. I benefited from that posting. It helped me to clarify in a better way what it is that Christians need to see to gain better understanding as to why we find fossils of prehistoric creations, that are not to be confused for having lived in this one. So, your resistance only furthers my effectiveness when the effectiveness will be best utilized. For that. I thank you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In a marketing sense, the calculations could be used to try to promote your theory.



You really ought to get that martyr target taken off your tee shirt. You keep interjecting intents that I do not present to you. I just simply state that the statistics do not show anything conclusive in regards to your desired outcome. It does though, conclusively show that the same genetic format has been used throughout the various creations this planet has been host to. Thanks for that much.

Actually, not quite the same genetic format. Bacterial DNA is circular, while that of humans and other eucaryotes is a double helix. Not to mention the RNA used by some viruses, which has a different protein in it.

 

[Loudmouth]

No takers. Only fakers.

It just seems like a big debate about the finer points of Harry Potter's adventures.

Just the same. I benefited from that posting. It helped me to clarify in a better way what it is that Christians need to see to gain better understanding as to why we find fossils of prehistoric creations, that are not to be confused for having lived in this one. So, your resistance only furthers my effectiveness when the effectiveness will be best utilized. For that. I thank you.

Your first task is to understand the basics of cladistics. Learn what synapomorphies and apomorphies are all about. Also learn how it differs from Linnaean taxonomy. That is, if it still interests you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, not quite the same genetic format. Bacterial DNA is circular, while that of humans and other eucaryotes is a double helix. Not to mention the RNA used by some viruses, which has a different protein in it.

Bacterial DNA is also a double helix. It just so happens that the ends of its chromosome are glued together while in Eukaryotes the ends are free.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Bacterial DNA is also a double helix. It just so happens that the ends of its chromosome are glued together while in Eukaryotes the ends are free.

I know, it reminds me of a braided bracelet. But that is a huge difference between the DNA of the two groups. I really need to word stuff better.