Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[tas8831]

Baraminology ? You’re joking right? No one with any understanding of genetics, (who isn’t being delusional like a few creationists with PhDs) , takes that pseudoscience nonsense seriously. And unlike sarah I am a Christian

The funny thing about baraminology is that it is just phylogenetics with a different name. Well that and its practitioners constrain the analytical outcomes to reflect bible lore...

 

[tas8831]

Okay, so you've taken the position that the man-made study of a field of science (genetics) by philosophers ("PhD" being a doctorate in philosophy) is somehow more relevant than God's word.

LOL! This word parsing is hilarious!

It would seem what you believe is driven by scientific intellectualism...

Or maybe scientific knowledge?

so think about how you would explain the science behind Jesus raising people from the dead

Tall tale.

and performing many other miracles

See above.

Science aside, is your issue really with baraminology, or is it with not believing God's word because you think what the philosophers of our day are saying (about events they never saw) is more relevant and true?

It is precious that you want to denigrate educated, degreed scientists by calling them philosophers due to the negative connotation of the word "philosophy" being in the name of the degree.
Do you also think anyone with a BS or BA degree has never been married?
Such is your 'intellectualism.'

 

[tas8831]

Now now - if you just interpret it CORRECTLY, all those problems mysteriously vanish....

Ooh, OOH! Let Me!

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27a So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;​

So far, so incorrect according to what we know actually happened.... but I digress.

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. ​

INCORRECT! Genesis 1:11-12 says they're already done growing.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. ​

I have a question - what is the purpose of the dreaded "tree of knowledge of good and evil", and why put it in such a dangerous place.... unless there's a plan for it?

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
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. <== Right There! ​

Why is it there then?? Was God short on space? couldn't he put it somewhere else.... like at the center of the Sun? or even better, a very slow, low and close orbit of Sagittarius A??

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.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. ​

INCORRECT! God already did this at Genesis 1:20-22 - or did he perform the unique creations twice in a row for everything that existed?

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. <== heh! Just like kids, unless we teach them to be ashamed of themselves naked...

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.​

Yep, still doesn't have the correct order of events even with itself let alone with what we know actually happened, no matter how you mash it. Anyway, so why didn't God just make one correct narrative, rather than flub the two needlessly separate contradicting short narratives? and that tree,, what purpose did it serve, except to intentionally condemn a pair of naive & trusting creations that were apparently perfect?

 

[Brightmoon]

The funny thing about baraminology is that it is just phylogenetics with a different name. Well that and its practitioners constrain the analytical outcomes to reflect bible lore...

Ummm!, no.baraminology is made up nonsense with artificial barriers between lineages that don’t belong there

 

[tas8831]

I'm a biblical creationist, but my background is finance

And there it is...

- then there are folks like Todd Wood who is also a biblical creationist, but he also has a PhD in Biology. Guess who knows more about baraminology... get my point? "Creationist" doesn't automatically mean expert in biology. If you want scholarly intellectualism then go to those with advanced degrees in the subject - here's a blog that Wood posts to on fairly regularly and there will be links to additional scholarly resources, if interested:

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/

Wood has 2 posts in which he deals with creationists claiming that there is no evidence for evolution. He, essentially, says such creationists are just ignorant (or deceptive). I agree.

ToE asserts that a dog could develop feathers and anything else given the right environmental pressures, random mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc...

No, it really doesn't.
Stick to finance.

t's just that the evidence does not show that dogs ever produce anything other than dogs and when going through the fossil record, not surprisingly, fossils are found that very closely resemble modern-day canines from the time of their first appearance.

Good thing that we can use something available in much larger quantities than fossils to fill in our gaps in knowledge. DNA.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have already posted this 2 or 3 times in thread alone for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

--------------------------------


As an aside - I will never understand the 'logic' of the claim that because people were willing to die for their Christian beliefs that this somehow shows that Christianity is true. As far as I can tell, being willing to die for such a mere belief is a sign of craziness or delusion, not evidence that the belief is true.

 

[tas8831]

So, within science there is evidence for a young earth and no evolution

No, there really isn't.

If what you claim had merit, then it seems to me that the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, etc., could actually produce some science that supports creation, instead of the typical ad hominems and anti-evolution essays they churn out.

 

[Brightmoon]

THAT... is a satisfactory answer. While I disagree with ToE, at least you are honest to admit that your view is on the basis of scientific assertions.

No,my understanding of science is based on evidence. The religious views you espouse either don’t have any evidence in support or they contradict well established science facts . Given both issues I’ve got no reason to accept biblical ideas about nature

 

[dad]

[QUOTE="tas8831, post: 72681070, member: 397968"


The earliest HUMAN ancestors were tailless, this is true. But earlier Primate ancestors were not. [/QUOTE] Or...those supposed ancestors were not really ancestors as your belief system insists.

 

[tas8831]

[QUOTE="tas8831, post: 72681070, member: 397968"


The earliest HUMAN ancestors were tailless, this is true. But earlier Primate ancestors were not.

Or...those supposed ancestors were not really ancestors as your belief system insists.[/QUOTE]


My 'belief system' is premised on reality.

Yours is premised on ancient tales that posit that the sky is a solid dome.

 

[AV1611VET]

My 'belief system' is premised on reality.

Your reality is inside a bubble that's inside of an ocean.

Outside of that bubble, where your reality can't go, is a whole ocean teaming with life and wonders.

Bubbleland inside the Sea of Reality.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Your reality is inside a bubble that's inside of an ocean.

Outside of that bubble, where your reality can't go, is a whole ocean teaming with life and wonders.

Bubbleland inside the Sea of Reality.

I don't suppose you're getting around to answering my questions in that other thread by chance, AV?

 

[HitchSlap]

Your reality is inside a bubble that's inside of an ocean.

Outside of that bubble, where your reality can't go, is a whole ocean teaming with life and wonders.

Bubbleland inside the Sea of Reality.

Speaking of oceans... 'give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime, give a man a religion, and he'll starve to death praying for a fish.'

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of oceans... 'give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime, give a man a religion, and he'll starve to death praying for a fish.'

You've been to India, haven't you?

They starve to death while getting out of the way of their sacred cows that roam the streets on their way to the sacred Ganges to urinate on those worshipping in it.

And in the meantime, educatees back here wonder why we don't embrace Hinduism as a religion on a par with Christianity.

(One poster here even said Hinduism was better than Christianity.)

 

[HitchSlap]

You've been to India, haven't you?

They starve to death while getting out of the way of their sacred cows that roam the streets on their way to the sacred Ganges to urinate on those worshipping in it.

And in the meantime, educatees back here wonder why we don't embrace Hinduism as a religion on a par with Christianity.

(One poster here even said Hinduism was better than Christianity.)

Well, they don't advocate slavery... so there's that.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You've been to India, haven't you?

They starve to death while getting out of the way of their sacred cows that roam the streets on their way to the sacred Ganges to urinate on those worshipping in it.

And in the meantime, educatees back here wonder why we don't embrace Hinduism as a religion on a par with Christianity.

(One poster here even said Hinduism was better than Christianity.)

Well, they don't advocate slavery... so there's that.

...or genocide...

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, they don't advocate slavery...

They don't have to.

They have one of the most oppressive doctrines on the face of the earth.

It's called the caste system.

It was so oppressive, the people formed a breakaway religion called Buddhism to get out from under it.

The Hindus countered by writing the Bhavagad-gita to get them to come back -- and unfortunately it worked.

And academians flocked to these Eastern religions in the '60s.

Today, these oppressive and nation-destroying religions are compared to Christianity; but Christianity outshines them hands down.

So academia tries another trick:

They can't elevate other religions to Christianity's level, so they work to bring Christianity down.

Sort of a meet-me-halfway deal.

 

[AV1611VET]

...or genocide...

The only ones I see pushing slavery and genocide from the Bible are academians.

They'll find anything in Its pages to discredit it, so they can supplant It with their religion (scientism).

God shows us He exists through cause-and-effect; and academia works hard against it.

Get God out of our government, the Bible out of our schools, various slogans out of our pledges and off of our coins, change "Christmas" to "X-mas," pluto greetings down to HAPPY HOLIDAYS and SEASONS GREETINGS; and now they're going after another one of His cause-and-effects: songs.

Make them "predjucial."

 

[Aman777]

Yours is premised on ancient tales that posit that the sky is a solid dome.

You have confused Adam's solid dome on top of his firmament/universe with the sky in the present Cosmos surrounded by Space. Adam's firmament was made the 2nd Day Genesis 1:8 while our world/universe was made on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 More study is indicated. Amen?

 

[HitchSlap]

They don't have to.

They have one of the most oppressive doctrines on the face of the earth.

It's called the caste system.

It was so oppressive, the people formed a breakaway religion called Buddhism to get out from under it.

The Hindus countered by writing the Bhavagad-gita to get them to come back -- and unfortunately it worked.

And academians flocked to these Eastern religions in the '60s.

Today, these oppressive and nation-destroying religions are compared to Christianity; but Christianity outshines them hands down.

So academia tries another trick:

They can't elevate other religions to Christianity's level, so they work to bring Christianity down.

Sort of a meet-me-halfway deal.

Kind of tough to see the trees when you're stuck in the forest.

 

[pitabread]

change "Christmas" to "X-mas,"

Using "X" in place of Christ has a history going back hundreds of years that has nothing to do with secularism. It appears to derive from the Chi Ro which itself goes back over 1000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram