Why are there still apes?

[James A]

[Delete]

 

[Shemjaza]

[Delete]

Now I'm doubly curious.

 

[coffee4u]

Lamark thought that aquired traits could be transmitted. He was wrong.

It's all wrong, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's all wrong, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If it is all wrong, why do we keep finding all this evidence for evolution? See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[doubtingmerle]

Rather then continue on with the reply I had started I’d rather familiarize myself this stuff, because I’m not trying to argue just for the sake of arguing, I don’t mind having my opinion changed if new information convinces me.

And in the meantime, I welcome you to bring up objections that come to your mind. Questions are great, as long as we are all willing to learn.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You know I'm just messing with you. I can't help but love you in a non-romantic way.

With all this chitchat, I had to doublecheck to make sure this thread was not called "Study Hall".

 

[AV1611VET]

If it is all wrong, why do we keep finding all this evidence for evolution?

Because evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots, with more holes (missing links) between the dots than Carter has liver pills.

See an ape here, and a man there? just draw a line between them and say the ape and the man came from a second line somewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

And in the meantime, I welcome you to bring up objections that come to your mind.

Deep time.

 

[doubtingmerle]

See an ape here, and a man there? just draw a line between them and say the ape and the man came from a second line somewhere.

You don't like the gap. OK, but then we find something in the middle, say homo habilis.

Whoops, now we got two gaps:

1. apes to homo habilis and
2. homo habilis to man.

No problem lets add in australopithicus and homo erectus. Does that resolve it? Now we have:

1. apes to austrlopithicus
2. australopithicus to homo habilis
3. homo habilis to homo erectus
4. homo erectus to man.

Now you will complain that you see four gaps. And so on.

The intermediates are there, if you care to look.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Deep time.

Are you saying there is not enough time for evolution?

And yet the earth was here for 4500 million years. That sounds like a lot of time to me.

 

[Shemjaza]

Are you saying there is not enough time for evolution?

And yet the earth was here for 4500 million years. That sounds like a lot of time to me.

He thinks life is only 6 ish thousand years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying there is not enough time for evolution?

Correct.

The earth came into existence on 23 October 4004 BC.

 

[AV1611VET]

The intermediates are there, if you care to look.

Have you seen my My Daisy Chain Challenge thread?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Correct.

The earth came into existence on 23 October 4004 BC.

Then why is it that we find rock layers buried down there that are millions of years old?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Have you seen my My Daisy Chain Challenge thread?

Ah, you need a fossil for every year.

Suppose a bank robbery occurs. The old security system has a series of pictures taken one every 3 seconds. Would that count as evidence of what happened? Or would you need 60 frames a second for every second of the event before you would even look at the evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why is it that we find rock layers buried down there that are millions of years old?

God created the earth with age embedded in it.

Trees fully grown, Adam fully grown, rocks fully aged, etc.

Maturity without history.

As Adam Clarke puts it:

It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

 

[Tone]

And in the meantime, I welcome you to bring up objections that come to your mind. Questions are great, as long as we are all willing to learn.

I just read, in another thread, of the idea that evolution is true up until humans. In other words, it is true for animals only.

*I will ask the author if I may bring his quote over, but what are your initial thoughts on this?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I just read, in another thread, of the idea that evolution is true up until humans. In other words, it is true for animals only.

*I will ask the author if I may bring his quote over, but what are your initial thoughts on this?

I find evidence for evolution of humans. That cannot be ignored.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find evidence for evolution of humans.

From a thread from years ago:

A common designer, using ontological reduction.

Do you remember my snowman challenge thread, where a person (common designer) makes both a snowape and a snowman from the same blanket of snow (DNA); giving the impression that B cam from A when, in fact, A and B were created separately?

 

[Strathos]

Remember when I asked AV if he could give a list of his family tree stretching back to Adam and Eve? That would be a lot easier than what he's demanding (probably less than 200 generations, as opposed to 4.5 billion years of fossils), yet he refused to even try.