Wild claims about only SDAs being young Earth Creationists in the 1800's and early 1900's.

[The Barbarian]

It's so unfortunate for you that the fossil record doesn't support your ideas, but only "inference".

Well, let's ask a knowledgeable YE creationist about that...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward A Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Dr. Wise is honest about the facts. He openly admits that he prefers his understanding of Genesis to the evidence. Maybe you should read his paper and learn from it.

No matter how far we go back, turtles are still turtles,

Nope.

New Fossil Shows How the Turtle Got Its Shell

Odontochelys semitestacea, the oldest turtle fossil yet, has a fully formed lower shell, or plastron, but lacks a fully formed upper shell

www.scientificamerican.com

The origin of turtles and their uniquely shelled body plan is one of the longest standing problems in vertebrate biology. The unfulfilled need for a hypothesis that both explains the derived nature of turtle anatomy and resolves their unclear phylogenetic position among reptiles largely reflects the absence of a transitional fossil record. Recent discoveries have dramatically improved this situation, providing an integrated, time-calibrated model of the morphological, developmental, and ecological transformations responsible for the modern turtle body plan. This evolutionary trajectory was initiated in the Permian (>260 million years ago) when a turtle ancestor with a diapsid skull evolved a novel mechanism for lung ventilation. This key innovation permitted the torso to become apomorphically stiff, most likely as an adaption for digging and a fossorial ecology. The construction of the modern turtle body plan then proceeded over the next 100 million years following a largely stepwise model of osteological innovation.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110218-024746

Transitional fossil, with turtle ribs but no carapace;

There's more, if you're interested.

You actually believe a tornado going through a junkyard can assemble a 747

If it did, it would overturn some key parts of evolutionary theory. As Everette Dirkson remarked, people are usually down on things they aren't up on. You've let charlatans give you a false story about what evolution is, and what evolutionary theory says. Why not learn about it; you wont be so easy to fool.

do evolutionists have sacraments? Do you all wave slide rulers around and chant "Darwin, Darwin, full of grace"?

And you guys get upset when people laugh about you. Spend some time learning what it's actually about; it could save you some future embarrassment. BTW, no one uses slide rules now; I accumulate slide rules and mess with them because they are ingenious little devices, but my phone can do everything slide rules do, and they do it faster with more accuracy.

Thinking you are wise isn't enough. You actually have to know what you're talking about.

 

[sfs]

No, you offered religious ideas based in faith, not science.

You're obviously flailing here -- you have no response to the evidence, so you refuse to engage with it. All you can do is recite sound bites you learned somewhere.

You ought to revisit Hovind's debates in which he points this out. All you guys do is make mountains from molehills. Berlinski tells you "when we look at dogs, no matter how far back we go, they're still dogs, when we look at bacteria, no matter how far back we go they stay bugs...there seems to be some inherent species limitation..." He says what you guys call "evidence" doesn't even "pass the threshold of anecdote".

Hovind isn't here and I'm not having a discussion with him. You're the one claiming the evidence is religious: back it up. Tell us how the empirical data on the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees is religious.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You're obviously flailing here -- you have no response to the evidence, so you refuse to engage with it. All you can do is recite sound bites you learned somewhere.

Hovind isn't here and I'm not having a discussion with him. You're the one claiming the evidence is religious: back it up. Tell us how the empirical data on the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees is religious.

The bottom line is that you Christ deniers want the rest of us to believe complexity just fell out the sky. You never offer plausible explanations for how the assembly instructions arose in order to assemble "similar" genes into vastly different ways, which is infinitely more astounding. You fail to realize God, like auto manufacturers, use common engineering to produce widely different products, and you recklessly insist that because their parts departments contain similar parts, well then, all automobiles evolved from the "Model T".

No matter how much evidence you're shown, you default to wild speculation as to the "creative power" of evolution and when shown how the complexity of DNA could never have arisen on it's own, you point to miniscule movements in evolutionary direction as "pathways" to complexity - the equivalent of dropping a bag of Scrabble letters on a table, finding three which line up as "c-a-t" and then triumphantly declaring the complete works of Shakespeare can be achieved if you have enough time and drop enough bags.

Why not consume some Creationist scientific data for a change from a former evolutionist science professor who taught PhD students biology, genetics, zoology, etc.?

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9O1V_zIr8MjSGwEG23pjbwdbwW56aWsj&si=Mk2i3jrD4a5xDOWx

 

[The Barbarian]

The bottom line is that you Christ deniers want the rest of us to believe complexity just fell out the sky.

We see this kind of stuff from creationists, who are then miffed when people laugh at them for being ignorant. Hovind is not Christ, and evolutionary theory doesn't say complexity fell out of the sky. It's astonishing that someone would have to tell you these things.

You fail to realize God, like auto manufacturers, use common engineering to produce widely different products, and you recklessly insist that because their parts departments contain similar parts, well then, all automobiles evolved from the "Model T".

That's the cool thing about God's way. You see, engineers have come to realize that evolution works better than design for many complex engineering problems. So they've started to do it God's way. Genetic algorithms use evolutionary processes to find optimal solutions for those problems.

Vol. 112, Section 4: JOURNAL OF FUELS AND LUBRICANTS (2003), pp. 1353-1364
Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR, Injection Timing and Multiple Injections

Turns out, God knows better than men. I shouldn't have to remind you about that, either.

 

[sfs]

The bottom line is that you Christ deniers want the rest of us to believe complexity just fell out the sky.

This forum is restricted to Christians. No one here is denying Christ.

You never offer plausible explanations for how the assembly instructions arose in order to assemble "similar" genes into vastly different ways, which is infinitely more astounding. You fail to realize God, like auto manufacturers, use common engineering to produce widely different products, and you recklessly insist that because their parts departments contain similar parts, well then, all automobiles evolved from the "Model T".

No matter how much evidence you're shown, you default to wild speculation as to the "creative power" of evolution and when shown how the complexity of DNA could never have arisen on it's own, you point to miniscule movements in evolutionary direction as "pathways" to complexity - the equivalent of dropping a bag of Scrabble letters on a table, finding three which line up as "c-a-t" and then triumphantly declaring the complete works of Shakespeare can be achieved if you have enough time and drop enough bags.

None of which has anything to do with the evidence I offered, and which you refuse to look at.

Why not consume some Creationist scientific data for a change from a former evolutionist science professor who taught PhD students biology, genetics, zoology, etc.?
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9O1V_zIr8MjSGwEG23pjbwdbwW56aWsj&si=Mk2i3jrD4a5xDOWx

What scientific data? I see one video there about the origin of life, which is a different subject, and one ludicrous one about evolution being a satanic plot.

 

[Phoneman-777]

We see this kind of stuff from creationists, who are then miffed when people laugh at them for being ignorant. Hovind is not Christ, and evolutionary theory doesn't say complexity fell out of the sky. It's astonishing that someone would have to tell you these things.

Not because of ridicule - why should the children of the kingdom care a thing about the opinions of them who are of their father the devil?

We are miffed that the deceived of Satan teach things which erode/erase a Christian's confidence in the plain Word of God.

That's the cool thing about God's way. You see, engineers have come to realize that evolution works better than design for many complex engineering problems. So they've started to do it God's way. Genetic algorithms use evolutionary processes to find optimal solutions for those problems.

Vol. 112, Section 4: JOURNAL OF FUELS AND LUBRICANTS (2003), pp. 1353-1364
Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR, Injection Timing and Multiple Injections

Turns out, God knows better than men. I shouldn't have to remind you about that, either.

Th idea that God got the ball rolling with evolution simply has no scientific support, period.

The only "evidence" to which you guys can point is by wild extrapolation - the same way a person drops a bag of Scrabble letters on a table, locates an arranged two or three letter word, and then proceeds to argue that the entire works of Shakespeare can be reproduced by dropping enough bags of letters on tables for millions and millions of years. Satanic asininity at its finest.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not because of ridicule - why should the children of the kingdom care a thing about the opinions of them who are of their father the devil?

Most creationists are not "of the devil." Hovind is an exception. Most creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us.

 

[The Barbarian]

The only "evidence" to which you guys can point is by wild extrapolation - the same way a person drops a bag of Scrabble letters on a table, locates an arranged two or three letter word, and then proceeds to argue that the entire works of Shakespeare can be reproduced by dropping enough bags of letters on tables for millions and millions of years. Satanic asininity at its finest.

The weird thing is that some creationists actually think that's what evolutionary theory says. Fact is, Darwin's great discovery is that it doesn't happen by chance. What you don't know, can hurt you. Why not learn what it's really about? Dr. Wood, Dr. Kurt Wise, and many other creationists have done so, without losing their faith in creationism. Worth a try?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Most creationists are not "of the devil." Hovind is an exception. Most creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us.

Evolution is a doctrine of devils, and it's sad that so many for one reason or another not only refuse to see that but actually defend that which is of the devil.

I could understand if there was no evidence against evolution, but there are so many unanswered questions that have arisen from a critical analysis of evolution that the only defense against such questions is to pretend they don't matter.

Like the "Reducing Atmosphere" story. It is absolutely true that if the Ozone Layer is removed, rays from the Sun which are normally blocked out by the Ozone Layer will travel unimpeded to the water surface and split the molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.

>>BOOM<<

Instant Ozone Layer...which proves there could never have been such an atmosphere. It's a Catch 22 impossibility.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Well, let's ask a knowledgeable YE creationist about that...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward A Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Dr. Wise is honest about the facts. He openly admits that he prefers his understanding of Genesis to the evidence. Maybe you should read his paper and learn from it.


Nope.

New Fossil Shows How the Turtle Got Its Shell

Odontochelys semitestacea, the oldest turtle fossil yet, has a fully formed lower shell, or plastron, but lacks a fully formed upper shell

www.scientificamerican.com

The origin of turtles and their uniquely shelled body plan is one of the longest standing problems in vertebrate biology. The unfulfilled need for a hypothesis that both explains the derived nature of turtle anatomy and resolves their unclear phylogenetic position among reptiles largely reflects the absence of a transitional fossil record. Recent discoveries have dramatically improved this situation, providing an integrated, time-calibrated model of the morphological, developmental, and ecological transformations responsible for the modern turtle body plan. This evolutionary trajectory was initiated in the Permian (>260 million years ago) when a turtle ancestor with a diapsid skull evolved a novel mechanism for lung ventilation. This key innovation permitted the torso to become apomorphically stiff, most likely as an adaption for digging and a fossorial ecology. The construction of the modern turtle body plan then proceeded over the next 100 million years following a largely stepwise model of osteological innovation.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110218-024746

Transitional fossil, with turtle ribs but no carapace;

There's more, if you're interested.


If it did, it would overturn some key parts of evolutionary theory. As Everette Dirkson remarked, people are usually down on things they aren't up on. You've let charlatans give you a false story about what evolution is, and what evolutionary theory says. Why not learn about it; you wont be so easy to fool.


And you guys get upset when people laugh about you. Spend some time learning what it's actually about; it could save you some future embarrassment. BTW, no one uses slide rules now; I accumulate slide rules and mess with them because they are ingenious little devices, but my phone can do everything slide rules do, and they do it faster with more accuracy.

Thinking you are wise isn't enough. You actually have to know what you're talking about.

Yes, that looks exactly like a turtle LOL

Dude, if you only knew that for every evolutionary "scientist" who says "that's a turtle", there's an evolutionary scientist saying, "no, bro, that's something else".

Some "scientists" claim the existence of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds, while others claim those very things are "myth" and "the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion" aka "absolutely could never exist".

So, rather than believe the plain "thus saith the Lord" you've chosen to call God a liar, shift your focus to the endless rounds of contradictory evolutionary nonsense, and latch on to whatever sounds good to you and turn it into an alternative gospel.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The weird thing is that some creationists actually think that's what evolutionary theory says. Fact is, Darwin's great discovery is that it doesn't happen by chance. What you don't know, can hurt you. Why not learn what it's really about? Dr. Wood, Dr. Kurt Wise, and many other creationists have done so, without losing their faith in creationism. Worth a try?

The ONLY evidence for "evolution" is microevolution, which you guys illegitimately extrapolate as "evidence" for macroevolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, etc.

"We can see that the ladybug changes it's colors from season to season, so that means an amoeba will eventually become an elephant".

 

[sfs]

The ONLY evidence for "evolution" is microevolution, which you guys illegitimately extrapolate as "evidence" for macroevolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, etc.

"We can see that the ladybug changes it's colors from season to season, so that means an amoeba will eventually become an elephant".

You've made this claim before, and it's been pointed out to you that it's wrong. Not just a little wrong, but giant-flaming-letters-in-the-sky kind of wrong. That means you're repeating falsehoods even though you've been told they're false. In fact, I pointed you to a kind of evidence that specifically addresses whether we can extrapolate microevolution to macroevolution. Since you're unwilling to go and look at any evidence, I'll have to bring it here. Here's a figure from that link, comparing genetic differences between humans with genetic differences between species:

Please tell us what's illegitimate about that figure.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, that looks exactly like a turtle LOL

Ribs and skeleton of a turtle. But not the carapace. It's not the only transitional form:
Current Biology
Volume 23, Issue 12, 17 June 2013, Pages R513-R515
Based on these new analyses, the position of Eunotosaurus along the ancestral turtle lineage just before Odontochelys (most primitive ‘true’ turtle) elucidates the order in which turtles evolved their novel adaptations [3]. Notably, the short trunk region, expanded ribs (i.e. costal bones in the turtle carapace), and reorganisation of intercostal musculature evolved very early, in the common ancestor of Eunotosaurus and all turtles. The dorsal plates over the vertebrae (i.e. neural bones along the carapace midline) evolved later, in the common ancestor of all turtles. This was followed by appearance of dermal bones along the edges of the carapace (peripheral bones), and envelopment of the shell around the shoulder girdle, which appeared in turtles later than Odontochelys.

This proposed evolutionary sequence closely matches the order in which these traits appear during the embryology of living turtles. The lateral elements (costals) of the carapace develop first, followed by the midline elements (neurals), and finally the entire developing carapace fans out to overhang the shoulder girdle. Furthermore, development from single rather than multiple primordia suggests that costal elements evolved via broadening of ribs alone, rather than via fusion of rib and overlying armour plating 17, 18. All this ontogenetic evidence suggests that the earliest stages in the evolution of the turtle shell should be represented by an animal with only expanded ribs (costals), no neurals, a shoulder girdle anterior to a wide trunk region, and no dermal armour — precisely the Gestalt exhibited by Eunotosaurus

Dude, if you only knew that for every evolutionary "scientist" who says "that's a turtle", there's an evolutionary scientist saying, "no, bro, that's something else".

Guess how I know you don't know much about science.

Some "scientists" claim the existence of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds

Feathered dinosaurs are a fact. Would you like me to show you? There have been some scientists who think that birds and dinosaurs are cousins, both evolving from a common thecodont ancestor. But recent genetic and anatomical data have pretty much eliminated that hypothesis. The discovery that dinosaurs had the "avian" respiratory system, the same reduction of forelimb digits, and feathers, and shared the trait of scutes (scales which can form feathers) made it clear that birds are dinosaurs.

I don't think you meant to call God a liar, but you certainly don't approve of His word or the way He did creation. Why not just accept His creation as it is, and then you won't have to be conflicted over it?

Your man-made alternative Gospel is not working for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

The ONLY evidence for "evolution" is microevolution,

Even honest YE creationists admit that the fossil record, for example, is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like me to show you?

which you guys illegitimately extrapolate as "evidence" for macroevolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, etc.

Origin of life and origin of stars is not part of the theory. Guess how I know you don't know much about science.

"We can see that the ladybug changes it's colors from season to season, so that means an amoeba will eventually become an elephant".

The hilarious thing is, some creationists actually believe that's what scientists say. Some of them know better, but they count on people like you not knowing better. Don't be so gullible.

 

[The Barbarian]

Like the "Reducing Atmosphere" story. It is absolutely true that if the Ozone Layer is removed, rays from the Sun which are normally blocked out by the Ozone Layer will travel unimpeded to the water surface and split the molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.

>>BOOM<<

Instant Ozone Layer...which proves there could never have been such an atmosphere. It's a Catch 22 impossibility.

The banded iron formations make it clear that there was reducing atmosphere early on. Reduced iron deposits are inconsistent with an oxidizing atmosphere.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You've made this claim before, and it's been pointed out to you that it's wrong. Not just a little wrong, but giant-flaming-letters-in-the-sky kind of wrong. That means you're repeating falsehoods even though you've been told they're false. In fact, I pointed you to a kind of evidence that specifically addresses whether we can extrapolate microevolution to macroevolution. Since you're unwilling to go and look at any evidence, I'll have to bring it here. Here's a figure from that link, comparing genetic differences between humans with genetic differences between species:
View attachment 340898
Please tell us what's illegitimate about that figure.

So what? Does the fact that all auto manufacturers use the wheel prove they're all from a "common ancestor"? Or, does it point to a really good design feature that is found in all different makes and models?

Besides, the thing you evolutionists never address is the VASTLY DIFFERENT means for assembling these "similar" genes into what are obviously different phenotype expressions.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Ribs and skeleton of a turtle. But not the carapace. It's not the only transitional form:
Current Biology
Volume 23, Issue 12, 17 June 2013, Pages R513-R515
Based on these new analyses, the position of Eunotosaurus along the ancestral turtle lineage just before Odontochelys (most primitive ‘true’ turtle) elucidates the order in which turtles evolved their novel adaptations [3]. Notably, the short trunk region, expanded ribs (i.e. costal bones in the turtle carapace), and reorganisation of intercostal musculature evolved very early, in the common ancestor of Eunotosaurus and all turtles. The dorsal plates over the vertebrae (i.e. neural bones along the carapace midline) evolved later, in the common ancestor of all turtles. This was followed by appearance of dermal bones along the edges of the carapace (peripheral bones), and envelopment of the shell around the shoulder girdle, which appeared in turtles later than Odontochelys.

This proposed evolutionary sequence closely matches the order in which these traits appear during the embryology of living turtles. The lateral elements (costals) of the carapace develop first, followed by the midline elements (neurals), and finally the entire developing carapace fans out to overhang the shoulder girdle. Furthermore, development from single rather than multiple primordia suggests that costal elements evolved via broadening of ribs alone, rather than via fusion of rib and overlying armour plating 17, 18. All this ontogenetic evidence suggests that the earliest stages in the evolution of the turtle shell should be represented by an animal with only expanded ribs (costals), no neurals, a shoulder girdle anterior to a wide trunk region, and no dermal armour — precisely the Gestalt exhibited by Eunotosaurus


Guess how I know you don't know much about science.


Feathered dinosaurs are a fact. Would you like me to show you? There have been some scientists who think that birds and dinosaurs are cousins, both evolving from a common thecodont ancestor. But recent genetic and anatomical data have pretty much eliminated that hypothesis. The discovery that dinosaurs had the "avian" respiratory system, the same reduction of forelimb digits, and feathers, and shared the trait of scutes (scales which can form feathers) made it clear that birds are dinosaurs.

I don't think you meant to call God a liar, but you certainly don't approve of His word or the way He did creation. Why not just accept His creation as it is, and then you won't have to be conflicted over it?

Your man-made alternative Gospel is not working for you.

I simply can't argue with a person who pretends scientific criticism of his ideas doesn't exist. Did I not show you the statement where your own atheistic scientific community member Olsen stated the "birds/dinos" idea as "the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion" - it doesn't exist! But, because you guys must attribute the rise of dinos from SOMETHING...well, the "birds/dinos" theory must be upheld at any cost.

"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promoted by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion."​

​

Wow...if I didn't know better, I'd think he was talking about a "religious scientific ideology" LOLOL

 

[Phoneman-777]

Even honest YE creationists admit that the fossil record, for example, is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like me to show you?

Origin of life and origin of stars is not part of the theory. Guess how I know you don't know much about science.

The hilarious thing is, some creationists actually believe that's what scientists say. Some of them know better, but they count on people like you not knowing better. Don't be so gullible.

Oh, give us a break! J Y Chen and S J Gould tell you the "evolutionary trees" don't exist at all - more like "evolutionary lawns".

Chordates were found all the way down in the Pre-Cambrian layer, which is exactly what SHOULD NOT be the case if evolutionary theory were correct...but of course, when such findings destroy the evolutionary time table, all we need do is wait for some hack to publish high sounding jargon "explaining" why up is down and down is up.

 

[enoob57]

God clearly and without doubt claims 7 literal 24 hour days... any claim outside of this reality of Scripture is merely denying Scripture and that's on them... I personally would not want to stand before the Creator calling Him or HIs Word error...

 

[sfs]

So what? Does the fact that all auto manufacturers use the wheel prove they're all from a "common ancestor"? Or, does it point to a really good design feature that is found in all different makes and models?

What I posted has nothing to do with features that are common between different species.

So try again: what is illegitimate about that figure? This time you might try understanding what it says before responding.