Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[OzSpen]

No, it was a joke, maybe not a particularly funny one, but a few posts before that AV bought up the endless genealogies quote in reference to common descent. I am perfectly aware of what Paul was talking about thanks.

Good job at sucking the humour out it though.

Didn't sound like humour to me. It was more like spoofing at AV.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I didn't use the term Spiritual Quotient. That was another poster!
View attachment 214301

Yes, but you replied to my reply to him.

 

[Jimmy D]

So are you the expert in ToE (theory of evolution).

Nope.

Are you accusing me of being an ignoramus about ToE?

Nope.

I don't know if you're ignorant or just deliberately creating strawmen - either way humans did not evolve from chimpanzees.

 

[Jimmy D]

Didn't sound like humour to me. It was more like spoofing at AV.

Spoofing / informal / verb - imitate (something) while exaggerating its characteristic features for comic effect.

 

[Astrophile]

Since there is no purpose in the universe and human beings (what you are suggesting), then it's OK for Hitler to enact the slaughter in the Holocaust, the terrorists to smash aeroplanes into the twin towers on Sept 11, 2001, for paedophiles to rape children, etc.

Are you suggesting that the terrorists who flew the aeroplanes into the twin towers on 11 September 2001 were atheists or that they thought that there was no purpose in the universe and human beings?

 

[OzSpen]

Nope.



I don't know if you're ignorant or just deliberately creating strawmen - either way humans did not evolve from chimpanzees.

How did human beings evolve, according to the Smithsonian article promoting evolution. It states:

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years....

Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa (What does it mean to be human? Smithsonian, emphasis added)
​

I presented no straw man fallacy. The evolutionary establishment agrees with what I wrote.

Either way, human beings did not evolve, as God stated in Gen 1 and Gen 2. If they did evolve, please provide me with the evidence of transition species from ape-like to human beings.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Spoofing / informal / verb - imitate (something) while exaggerating its characteristic features for comic effect.

That's what you did to AV in my understanding.

 

[OzSpen]

Are you suggesting that the terrorists who flew the aeroplanes into the twin towers on 11 September 2001 were atheists or that they thought that there was no purpose in the universe and human beings?

Astro,

That's an Argument from Silence Fallacy.

What did I state to Hermon in #1331 when he as promoting a purposeless universe? Here it is:

So are you excited about their being no purpose in life for you personally?

Since there is no purpose in the universe and human beings (what you are suggesting), then it's OK for Hitler to enact the slaughter in the Holocaust, the terrorists to smash aeroplanes into the twin towers on Sept 11, 2001, for paedophiles to rape children, etc.

If there is no purpose in the universe, anything a person chooses to do is acceptable.​

Please read me accurately. Your question here indicates you were NOT following what I wrote.

If the universe has no purpose, that means groups or individual human beings have no purpose. Therefore, purposeless human beings can do whatever they choose to do as with ISIS, Nero, Claudius, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, the terrorists of Sept 11 2001, the paedophile who rapes, the murderer who stabs another to death, OR .... Those who choose to be benevolent.

Absolutely nowhere did I state or infer that the terrorists of Sept 11 were atheists. That's your invention about my worldview and it is an argument from silence fallacy.

Oz

 

[Gene2memE]

How did human beings evolve, according to the Smithsonian article promoting evolution. It states:

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years....

Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa (What does it mean to be human? Smithsonian, emphasis added)
​

I presented no straw man fallacy. The evolutionary establishment agrees with what I wrote.

You're embarassing yourself.

Nothing in that information from the Smithsonian supports any conclusion, in any way, that there are transitional species between humans and chimpanzees.

Either your misreading, dont understand the information being provided by the Smithsonian, or you dont understand evolutionary biology well enough to know that that species with a common ancestor cannot have a transitional ancestor, as they no longer share the same ancestral lineage since the speciation event.

 

[Astrophile]

Please direct me to a fossil of a transition species between a chimpanzee and a human being.

You could try Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus sediba. Google any of these, and you will find pictures of their fossils, as well as a great deal of other information.

Of course, these are not transition species in the sense that they are descended from modern chimpanzees, although some of these species may be directly ancestral to human beings (genus Homo). However, they are closer to the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans than we are, and they are more closely related to us than to chimpanzees. In particular, Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are probably closely related to the true common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.

I have downloaded images of the skeletons of Australopithecus sediba (left and right hand skeletons of left-hand image) and of Australopithecus afarensis (middle skeleton) and the skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You could try Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus sediba. Google any of these, and you will find pictures of their fossils, as well as a great deal of other information.

Of course, these are not transition species in the sense that they are descended from modern chimpanzees, although some of these species may be directly ancestral to human beings (genus Homo). However, they are closer to the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans than we are, and they are more closely related to us than to chimpanzees. In particular, Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are probably closely related to the true common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.

I have downloaded images of the skeletons of Australopithecus sediba (left and right hand skeletons of left-hand image) and of Australopithecus afarensis (middle skeleton) and the skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis.




View attachment 214422 View attachment 214423

He got you with that one. Those are not transitional between chimpanzee and human. Now he'll probably hang you out as his poster boy for evolution denial. You may want to clarify what you showed and make clear how it does not support his position that we are descended from chimpanzees.

 

[OzSpen]

You could try Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus sediba. Google any of these, and you will find pictures of their fossils, as well as a great deal of other information.

Of course, these are not transition species in the sense that they are descended from modern chimpanzees, although some of these species may be directly ancestral to human beings (genus Homo). However, they are closer to the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans than we are, and they are more closely related to us than to chimpanzees. In particular, Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are probably closely related to the true common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.

I have downloaded images of the skeletons of Australopithecus sediba (left and right hand skeletons of left-hand image) and of Australopithecus afarensis (middle skeleton) and the skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

View attachment 214422 View attachment 214423

Astro,

I asked for an example of a transition species from chimpanzees to human beings. What did you do? You gave me nothing more than your presuppositions: 'Some of these species may be directly ancestral to human beings (genus Homo)'. That is your guess of 'may be'. Evolutionary presuppositions drove your response.

The Smithsonian description of this ape-like fossil is:

'Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one of the oldest known species in the human family tree. This species lived sometime between 7 and 6 million years ago in West-Central Africa (Chad)' (What does it mean to be human?)​

This promotes a presupposition of deceit. When the Smithsonian states, 'Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one of the oldest known species in the human family tree', it is not providing evidence of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, an ape-like fossil, being one of the human family. Evolution requires that kind of explanation, based, not on evidence, but on assertion: 'Sahelanthropus tchadensis is'.

The examples you provided are NOT evidence of evolution when you state they 'are probably closely related to the true common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans'.

That's an evolutionary presupposition driving your assertion. You are ducking and weaving because there is NO fossil evidence that clearly demonstrates evolutionary transition species from ape-like beings to human beings.

We can debate here over and over but you are not going to drop your evolutionary presupposition (with a lot of guess work) and I'm not going to swap 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth' (Gen 1:1) for your evolutionary 'probably closely related'.

Oz

 

[pitabread]

I asked for an example of a transition species from chimpanzees to human beings. What did you do? You gave me nothing more than your presuppositions: 'Some of these species may be directly ancestral to human beings (genus Homo)'. That is your guess of 'may be'.

Creationists need to understand that it's rather silly to ask for the specific common ancestor between two extant taxa. Especially when we're talking evolutionary time frames of millions of years.

It's a bit like if I asked you to produce the exact identities of your own ancestors from three thousand years ago. You'd never be able to do it, but I don't doubt you still believe they existed.

The only way we'd ever be able to produce the exact common ancestor is if we had every single fossil or every single living thing ever, coupled with a complete, in-tact DNA record for everything. But we don't. Fossils are extremely rare and are merely representative of lifeforms at a given point in Earth's history.

That doesn't invalidate the inference of common ancestry nor the patterns of evolutionary change observed however.

That's an evolutionary presupposition driving your assertion. You are ducking and weaving because there is NO fossil evidence that clearly demonstrates evolutionary transition species from ape-like beings to human beings.

This is a lie. There is an obvious pattern of evolutionary change, even from the scant fossils we have. Couple that with other lines of evidence (particularly molecular evidence) and the pattern of evolution is quite clear.

 

[Speedwell]

We can debate here over and over but you are not going to drop your evolutionary presupposition (with a lot of guess work) and I'm not going to swap 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth' (Gen 1:1) for your evolutionary 'probably closely related'.

So what do you plan to do with your beliefs, down there in Oz? In this country, the scheme is to replace science in the public schools with YECism and impose fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study on all students, regardless of faith. There is a substantial political agenda as well--for more particulars, google Judge Roy Moore.

I don't know that much about Australia or how some of Creationists' favorite notions would play there. Recriminalize homosexuality? Relax or rescind gun control laws? Reinstate the death penalty?

 

[OzSpen]

So what do you plan to do with your beliefs, down there in Oz? In this country, the scheme is to replace science in the public schools with YECism and impose fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study on all students, regardless of faith. There is a substantial political agenda as well--for more particulars, google Judge Roy Moore.

I don't know that much about Australia or how some of Creationists' favorite notions would play there. Recriminalize homosexuality? Relax or rescind gun control laws? Reinstate the death penalty?

What's the title of this thread? Why are you not addressing the OP?

 

[Speedwell]

What's the title of this thread? Why are you not addressing the OP?

Just curiosity.
I've lived in the "Bible Belt" here--that is, where creationists are most heavily concentrated (basically the same territory as the old Confederate States). I've seen them in action where they are in the majority and know what their political goals are. I am curious to know how that plays out in another country.

 

[Speedwell]

dp

 

[AV1611VET]

I've lived in the "Bible Belt" here--that is, where creationists are most heavily concentrated ...

Doesn't that strike you as odd that it is called the Bible Belt, yet it is infested with creationists?

If Genesis 1 is a myth like godless scientists say it is, then why is it called the Bible Belt?

 

[Jimmy D]

What's the title of this thread? Why are you not addressing the OP?

Well said! Why are no creationists presenting any evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well said! Why are no creationists presenting any evidence?

Would you recognize it if we did?