A Question Rgarding Embedded Age

[dad]

In the rarely spoken language of dad-ish, there is no translated word for evidence.

Let's translate what the poster you cited claims is evidence, and you apparently agree with then.

The oldest living ancestors to man is a news article were said to be flatworms. You guys truly believe in your hearts, and claim openly that man came about as a result of these 'ancestors' reproducing!! Correct?

Be brave. Have spine.

 

[dad]

And you believe you came from dust, which is no way far more ridiculous.. Noooooo.

Think of a better argument.

Look at the evidence.

Don't try to justify your belief in flatworm sex casuing mankind, elephants, tigers, etc...by offering a skewed opinion of what God said. You must wear your claims.

Man did not come from dust, but from God, who created the dust, and also man using some of that dust. The main thing was that He breathed life into man.

 

[dad]

Ok, back.

Wish I hadn't read some of the stuff on flatworm behavior, while at the same time is was entertaining. Good for a chuckle or two.

This is the evidence that flatworms having sex are our ancestors???

"The flatworms, known in scientific literature as Platyhelminthes or Plathelminthes (from the Greek πλατύ, platy, meaning "flat" and ἕλμινς (root: ἑλμινθ-), helminth-, meaning worm) are a phylum of relatively simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals. Unlike other bilaterians, they have no body cavity, and no specialized circulatory and respiratory organs, which restricts them to flattened shapes that allow oxygen and nutrients to pass through their bodies by diffusion."
​

I just don't have enough faith to embrace the flatworm creationist view.

Ha. I guess by the time they made it to maggots they think they really progressed!!!

 

[dad]

Just going to put this out there for those who might not understand what we mean by stating flatworms are our oldest living ancestor, but no one thinks a flat worm gave birth to a human. Just to clarify.

Yes, eventually all mankind supposedly resulted! (insert imaginary ancestors in between of course)

 

[dad]

"It may well be"

"This may mean"

"based on the assumption"

"using a software program to create an evolutionary road map that showed the most likely relationships among the organisms"

"researchers don't know yet the details of when or how this other change occurred"

"may be"

This folks is a perfect example of the subjective 'evidence' of those who embrace Darwinist creationism. The maybes, could be's and might have beens aren't evidence, but simply the faith based beliefs of those who believe humans are the result of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism acting upon these life forms who are "simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals. Unlike other bilaterians, they have no body cavity, and no specialized circulatory and respiratory organs, which restricts them to flattened shapes that allow oxygen and nutrients to pass through their bodies by diffusion."

Here's a photo. See the resemblance to humans?

They look a bit like sperm with eyes.

 

[RickG]

Let's translate what the poster you cited claims is evidence, and you apparently agree with then.

The oldest living ancestors to man is a news article were said to be flatworms. You guys truly believe in your hearts, and claim openly that man came about as a result of these 'ancestors' reproducing!! Correct?

Be brave. Have spine.

I haven't participated in the flatworm discussion dad. Biology is not my area of expertise. My area was Earth science. You might want to direct that to the flatworm people.

 

[dad]

I haven't participated in the flatworm discussion dad. Biology is not my area of expertise. My area was Earth science. You might want to direct that to the flatworm people.

Ha.

 

[justlookinla]

They look a bit like sperm with eyes.

Looks like good fishin' bait to me.

 

[dad]

Looks like good fishin' bait to me.

Maybe we could charge people fishing with crimes against humanity since they torture ancestors!

 

[biggles53]

Maybe we could charge people fishing with crimes against humanity since they torture ancestors!

Now, just to twist your already bent brain a little further...

You do realise, don't you, that of the trillions of cells that make up your body, about 9 out of every 10 are non-human...?

 

[justlookinla]

Maybe we could charge people fishing with crimes against humanity since they torture ancestors!

Seriously, the amazing thing is that people actually believe this stuff.

 

[dad]

Now, just to twist your already bent brain a little further...

You do realise, don't you, that of the trillions of cells that make up your body, about 9 out of every 10 are non-human...?

No. You seem confused as to what human is. That I realize.

 

[dad]

Seriously, the amazing thing is that people actually believe this stuff.

If I were a godless evo, being faced with this look at my beliefs would likely make me think hard about the inspiration of those claims.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They look a bit like sperm with eyes.

A little I suppose. Still an ancient ancestor of humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A little I suppose. Still an ancient ancestor of humans.

Well, to clarify the point a bit:

The flatworms of today are not the ancient ancestors of humans but they look quite a bit like them. This simple fact drives creationists mad for some strange reason.

 

[dad]

Well, to clarify the point a bit:

The flatworms of today are not the ancient ancestors of humans but they look quite a bit like them. This simple fact drives creationists mad for some strange reason.

So will the honorable poster admit, then, that these 'flatworms' that you say look quite a bit like them that are the ancestors in your belief system, had sex? Would you further admit that the resut of this reproduction was you?

I mean the article called the ancestor flatworms. If you have another name for these flatworms, we can use that! Tomato--tomatoe.

The fossil record of soft bodied creatures is minimal.

"Platyhelminthes classes as well as the phylum may be paraphyletic. Fossil records of Platyhelminthes are minimal."

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~jdirnber/InvertZoo/LecPlatyhel/Platyhel.html

You may not be in a position to know if there were varieties of flatworms living back in the day when Granny Flatworm and Grandpa Flatworm we busy making you!! (in your religion)

I submit that believing animals and man came about as a result of sex between creatures like these is an affront to intelligence and dignity.

 

[RickG]

"Platyhelminthes classes as well as the phylum may be paraphyletic. Fossil records of Platyhelminthes are minimal."

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~jdirnber/InvertZoo/LecPlatyhel/Platyhel.html

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I can assure you that Kennesaw St. Univ. does not teach creation science.

 

[dad]

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I can assure you that Kennesaw St. Univ. does not teach creation science.

There was a claim here by a poster that the flatworms that were the supposed ancestors were somewhat unlike present ones.

I pointed out that the fossil record is woefully weak on that. I also pointed out that if there were species of flatworms alive at the time, how would we know now? How can one claim whatever flatworms were around were so different, as if there were not also other flatworms much as today also?

 

[PsychoSarah]

There was a claim here by a poster that the flatworms that were the supposed ancestors were somewhat unlike present ones.

I pointed out that the fossil record is woefully weak on that. I also pointed out that if there were species of flatworms alive at the time, how would we know now? How can one claim whatever flatworms were around were so different, as if there were not also other flatworms much as today also?

Well, the overall structure if flatworms hasn't changed a whole lot, but species just don't continue unchanged for hundreds of millions of years enough to be the same before and after. Even coelacanths, while very much resembling very old fossils, are not the same species.

 

[RickG]

There was a claim here by a poster that the flatworms that were the supposed ancestors were somewhat unlike present ones.

I pointed out that the fossil record is woefully weak on that. I also pointed out that if there were species of flatworms alive at the time, how would we know now? How can one claim whatever flatworms were around were so different, as if there were not also other flatworms much as today also?

Yeah I know. A version of the "why are there still monkeys" argument. But that is all I will say about that. Biology is not my area of interest, even though I am certified to teach it. Is it yours?