Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Mr Laurier]

Kind like Nebraska Man, isn't it?

Not even in the same city, let alone the same ballpark.

One tooth suddenly becomes a whole tribe of subhumans under sunny skies down by the river with goofy expressions on their faces.

Wow. You are not even on the same continent. You are wildly trying to equate two unrelated things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not even in the same city, let alone the same ballpark.

Wouldn't Nebraska man be all over the earth, until they were replaced by Homos?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Wouldn't Nebraska man be all over the earth, until they were replaced by Homos?

Given that "Nebraska Man" never existed outside of the creative fancies of a tabloid editor in the early 1920s.
Seriously AV. Open a high school biology textbook. Open one from each decade since 1920. And also, any ten random books on human evolution, from any public library.
You will not find a single entry on "Nebraska Man".
I only ever learned about it from creationists online, who insisted that I had to believe in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that "Nebraska Man" never existed outside of the creative fancies of a tabloid editor in the early 1920s.
Seriously AV. Open a high school biology textbook. Open one from each decade since 1920. And also, any ten random books on human evolution, from any public library.
You will not find a single entry on "Nebraska Man".
I only ever learned about it from creationists online, who insisted that I had to believe in it.

Well it only existed as fact for ... what? ... five years?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Well it only existed as fact for ... what? ... five years?

No. ZERO years.
ZERO days.
ZERO seconds.

 

[Speedwell]

Well it only existed as fact for ... what? ... five years?

It never was a fact.

 

[disciple Clint]

I think the problem is that you will never accept any evidence that exposes the Turin Shroud as a fraud, no matter the test, or the evidence.
You have latched into this one scrap of linen, and tied your whole faith to it.
This places you in an awkward position.

You would be incorrect in your conclusion just as you are incorrect in your conclusion that the shroud as been proven to be a fake. It is still a subject of debate by the experts.

 

[Mr Laurier]

You would be incorrect in your conclusion just as you are incorrect in your conclusion that the shroud as been proven to be a fake. It is still a subject of debate by the experts.

Your opinion is noted.
So why is the shroud so important to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

It never was a fact.

I don't believe that.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't believe that.

Nebraska man was never more than a shaky hypothesis, soon falsified. Where did you get the idea that it was a fact?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nebraska man was never more than a shaky hypothesis, soon falsified. Where did you get the idea that it was a fact?

Well he certain wasn't in the comics section of the newspapers was he? he certainly wasn't sold in book stores in the FICTION section, was he?

 

[Speedwell]

Well he certain wasn't in the comics section of the newspapers was he? he certainly wasn't sold in book stores in the FICTION section, was he?

No, he was promoted by the tabloid press, which is much the same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, he was promoted by the tabloid press, which is much the same thing.

Are we going to start this again?

Did Joe the Reporter name this thing Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I said Christians AND others who believe in God, the point being the founders of science itself, from the scientific method itself to virtually every branch of science, was founded by non atheists who had belief in God.

Which god? The islamo-judeo-christian god? Since you capitalized "God" in English, should I assume you are talking about your god? (You, know the Christian one that includes Jesus. If so there goes the Jews, Muslims, and Deists from the candidate pile as they don't think Jesus was god.)

Most people believe in a god of some sort.
Sciences were founded by people.
Therefore, most sciences were founded by a believer in some sort of god.

The same applies to forms of government, styles of music, literature, and art, etc.

None of this makes science dependent on religious belief generally or specifically.

If you want to demonstrate the necessity of a religious origin to a specific science, then get specific. Tell me about how Bohr's Christianity influenced the quantization of the atom.

 

[chad kincham]

So your personal failure to understand basic evolutionary biology. And the fancifull story you made up to cover for that failure.
Got it.

Look in the mirror when you say that, because it applies to you.

I accurately stated that Darwinian evolution is the claim of gradualistic morphing of lower animals into higher life forms via natural selection of the fittest to survive.

The modern synthesis of evolutionary theory added genetic mutation to natural selection, sine it was recognized that Darwinism is only about the SURVIVAL of the fittest, and not about the ARRIVAL of the fittest.

It’s pretty lame that evolutionists accuse those who reject macro evolution of doing so because of the claim that we don’t understand the science of the simplistic fairy tale for atheists known as the theory of evolution.

There are thousands of those with PhDs in biology, chemistry, and other science disciplines who reject the presupposition of naturalistic materialism used to interpret the data - and to claim they don’t understand the so-called science, is ludicrous.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are thousands of those with PhDs in biology, chemistry, and other science disciplines who reject the presupposition of naturalistic materialism used to interpret the data - and to claim they don’t understand the so-called science, is ludicrous.

I haven't met them.

The only ones I've seen with those degrees making those claims are employed by creationist orgs and "colleges".

 

[chad kincham]

I think you are using some weird definitions.

What is "vertical evolution" and "lateral evolution" in your mind?

Do you just mean:
micro evolution: evolution at the species level
macro evolution: evolution beyond the species level

Micro evolution is obviously lateral evolution, and macro evolution is vertical evolution, meaning a lower animal changing into a higher animal.

All the evidence that is presented is micro evolution, which is merely variations within a species - any evolution that leaves a finch still a finch, a bacterium still bacteria, a moth still a moth, doesn’t demonstrate that life forms can undergo the quantum leap in genetic information needed to morph into a new and higher animal.

Yet they extrapolate macro from micro evolution as if it’s proven fact.

 

[Speedwell]

It’s pretty lame that evolutionists accuse those who reject macro evolution of doing so because of the claim that we don’t understand the science of the simplistic fairy tale for atheists known as the theory of evolution.

Many creationists do not understand the theory of evolution. Whether they accept or reject it is a separate question. They might still reject it even if they understood it--some notable scientists do just that. But creationists who try to argue against the theory of evolution without understanding it just make themselves and their beliefs look foolish.

There are thousands of those with PhDs in biology, chemistry, and other science disciplines who reject the presupposition of naturalistic materialism used to interpret the data - and to claim they don’t understand the so-called science, is ludicrous.

Sure there are, tens of thousands no doubt, but they don't reject the theory of evolution because of it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Micro evolution is obviously lateral evolution, and macro evolution is vertical evolution, meaning a lower animal changing into a higher animal.

What's a "higher animal"? How do we define such a thing?

Does this assessment of evolution apply to "higher plants" or "higher fungi" as well?

 

[Shemjaza]

Micro evolution is obviously lateral evolution, and macro evolution is vertical evolution, meaning a lower animal changing into a higher animal.

All the evidence that is presented is micro evolution, which is merely variations within a species - any evolution that leaves a finch still a finch, a bacterium still bacteria, a moth still a moth, doesn’t demonstrate that life forms can undergo the quantum leap in genetic information needed to morph into a new and higher animal.

Yet they extrapolate macro from micro evolution as if it’s proven fact.

I think you should stop using those terms as they could cause confusion with the concepts of lateral and vertical gene transfer. A very different concept.

Micro and macro evolution are more established and understood terms. Making up your own terminology will just sow confusion.

We have examples of micro evolution taking steps to the point of species no longer being able to breed and being considered new species.

There are also ring species where:

A is similar to and able to inter breed with B
B is similar to and able to inter breed with C
C is similar to and able to inter breed with D
D is similar to and able to inter breed with E
E is so different to A that they are clearly separate species and can't interbreed.

That sort of situation is one or two species extinction from multiple clearly distinct species... and thus macro evolution (or vertical evolution is your personal system).

In addition macro and micro don't propose different mechanisms... just larger degrees of change over a typically longer period.