A thread on evolution

[createdtoworship]

It's not particularly useful information. Especially if it's just resorting to supernaturalism which is traditionally what humans tend to do when they lack natural explanations for things. It's just a stop-gap.

If you really want to show evidence that life on Earth had a designer, then maybe you can start by demonstrating existence of that designer. Where are they? How did they create their design? Was it a one time deal at the dawn of the Earth? Or has it been ongoing throughout the history of the planet?

Is there only one designer? If similarities are from the same designer, then do difference indicate multiple designers? And so on...

And no, differences would not indicate multiple designers, just multiple types created by the one true God.

 

[pitabread]

And no, differences would not indicate multiple designers, just multiple types created by the one true God.

How would you know though? How does one distinguish between one designer and multiple designers?

Remember, you suggested that similarities indicate the same designer. So why would that be evidence of one designer but differences wouldn't be evidence of multiple designers?

 

[pitabread]

I did provide clinical evidence of the designer in the op videos.

From what I've read in this thread, it sounds like Ray was just relying on a good ol' argument from incredulity. Unfortunately, that's not a particularly compelling argument for design. In fact, it's probably the worst argument for a designer.

 

[createdtoworship]

From what I've read in this thread, it sounds like Ray was just relying on a good ol' argument from incredulity. Unfortunately, that's not a particularly compelling argument for design. In fact, it's probably the worst argument for a designer.

well you would have to watch it. He has solid logic, and logic that converted several atheists.

 

[createdtoworship]

How would you know though? How does one distinguish between one designer and multiple designers?

Remember, you suggested that similarities indicate the same designer. So why would that be evidence of one designer but differences wouldn't be evidence of multiple designers?

you would go outside of what was said.
When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statement." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.
I currently know that the modern definition of God is all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere at once. IF there were two Gods, the first God would not be all knowing, but would share knowledge, and He would not be everywhere at once, as He would share some space with the other God. The very definition of God refutes polytheism.

 

[Skreeper]

well you would have to watch it. He has solid logic, and logic that converted several atheists.

I don't know what Ray has but it is neither solid nor logic.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't know what Ray has but it is neither solid nor logic.

Did you watch the video?

 

[Shemjaza]

I already gave you direct evidence of what is ape like, and what is human like. If you has ct scans instead of low resolution images, it may help. I can only work with what is given to me.

"Has a nose"... really?

 

[createdtoworship]

"Has a nose"... really?

Yes, all humans have was it called a nose ridge. As opposed to what is called a "shovel face" in which the face slopes with no ridge into the brow area resembling a shovel from the profile. That is direct evidence that the skulls presented only showed few human like creatures and a whole lot of ape like creatures.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well in order to be proto Human it needs to have both characteristics of both beings.

Indeed the skull does have characteristics of both. Hence my post.

If you compared the skull of sahelanthropus to the skull of say, a tyrannosaurus rex, if someone asked you which was more similar to a human skull, you would have no trouble answering. Obviously sahelanthropus's skull shares some qualities with that of modern man. Two eyes in front, somewhat flat face (though not fully flat), teeth in a C shape, similar arrangement of teeth, foramen magnum almost fully below the skull, similar shaped skull etc.

Sahelanthropus indeed shares many qualities with modern man.

Simultaneously, it is different. You pointed out the larger canine teeth. It has a brain capacity about 1/4 the size of modern man. It does have a bit of a sloped nose. It has an abnormally large brow ridge. These are traits that are more ape like, like chimps or orangutans. Though the teeth arent as big as an orangutans. The foramen magnum is further beneath the skull than an orangutans. The angle between the foramen magnum and the orbital plane is closer to that of a human than a chimp.

So, sahelanthropus is not human, and it is not like any other ape around today. But indeed it does share qualities of both.

And understanding this, and saying "ok I understand this and I accept this", is step number one.

This is simply one piece of the puzzle, step one of the puzzle, it is one link in the chain, and one evidence of many. But it all starts here. With understanding the simple reality that these skulls, like that of sahel anthropus, does indeed have similarities with human beings and other apes.

Nobody expects anyone to just accept biological evolution on this alone. But this, in combination with other well understood facts, makes biological evolution a clear reality.

 

[Job 33:6]

but seriously, I can find similarities in all mammals if I want to. thats why they are mammals. There are also finer tuned similarities. Such as that all creatures have DNA. Now this later fact is one that proves what I Was saying, in that they have DNA because they are made by the same creator. That is a plausible explanation for similarities found in animals. I never said you had to agree. But to be honest you must accept it as a plausible theory.

Did you know, that if you made a family tree based on genetic relatedness, it would (and indeed does) match the fossil succession in the earth?

If you do not acknowledge this, hypothetically, if it were true, would you then believe in common descent?

Do you know what my question means?

 

[pitabread]

well you would have to watch it. He has solid logic, and logic that converted several atheists.

I don't need to watch it. Others in this thread watched it and posted Ray's arguments. They're a) nothing I haven't heard before, and b) they're terrible.

So no, I'm not buying any arguments for design by Ray Comfort, sorry to disappoint.

 

[pitabread]

I currently know that the modern definition of God is all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere at once. IF there were two Gods, the first God would not be all knowing, but would share knowledge, and He would not be everywhere at once, as He would share some space with the other God. The very definition of God refutes polytheism.

You're jumping ahead of yourself here. We're trying to determine, just based on the supposed evidence found in living things, whether there was one designer or multiple designers. Instead you're already jumping ahead to prescribing a specific nature of the designer based on your own assumptions.

If you want to try to argue in favor of evidence for a designer, you have to check all your preconceptions at the door.

Now, based on the evidence from living things how would one distinguish between a single designer versus multiple designers?

 

[createdtoworship]

Indeed the skull does have characteristics of both. Hence my post.

If you compared the skull of sahelanthropus to the skull of say, a tyrannosaurus rex, if someone asked you which was more similar to a human skull, you would have no trouble answering. Obviously sahelanthropus's skull shares some qualities with that of modern man. Two eyes in front, somewhat flat face (though not fully flat), teeth in a C shape, similar arrangement of teeth, foramen magnum almost fully below the skull, similar shaped skull etc.

Sahelanthropus indeed shares many qualities with modern man.

Simultaneously, it is different. You pointed out the larger canine teeth. It has a brain capacity about 1/4 the size of modern man. It does have a bit of a sloped nose. It has an abnormally large brow ridge. These are traits that are more ape like, like chimps or orangutans. Though the teeth arent as big as an orangutans. The foramen magnum is further beneath the skull than an orangutans. The angle between the foramen magnum and the orbital plane is closer to that of a human than a chimp.

So, sahelanthropus is not human, and it is not like any other ape around today. But indeed it does share qualities of both.

And understanding this, and saying "ok I understand this and I accept this", is step number one.

This is simply one piece of the puzzle, step one of the puzzle, it is one link in the chain, and one evidence of many. But it all starts here. With understanding the simple reality that these skulls, like that of sahel anthropus, does indeed have similarities with human beings and other apes.

Nobody expects anyone to just accept biological evolution on this alone. But this, in combination with other well understood facts, makes biological evolution a clear reality.

again my reply to this would be very similar to this post:
A thread on evolution

 

[createdtoworship]

Did you know, that if you made a family tree based on genetic relatedness, it would (and indeed does) match the fossil succession in the earth?

If you do not acknowledge this, hypothetically, if it were true, would you then believe in common descent?

Do you know what my question means?

not sure if you are referring to darwins tree of life, but this has recently been refuted:

New Scientist says Darwin was wrong
http://phys.org/news152274071.html#jCp
texscience.org – Blog
Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't need to watch it. Others in this thread watched it and posted Ray's arguments. They're a) nothing I haven't heard before, and b) they're terrible.

So no, I'm not buying any arguments for design by Ray Comfort, sorry to disappoint.

that is why you need to watch it. I guarantee you none of them watched it to the end. if one hour could change your life would you sacrifice one hour? Again it's not just how ray words the questions, it's common sense. It really is, and all of them eventually agree in the common sense questions. I could post it here but I would ruin the movie, and I don't like ruining movies for people.

 

[Speedwell]

not sure if you are referring to darwins tree of life, but this has recently been refuted:

New Scientist says Darwin was wrong

From the article:

"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that “New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong”. Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not."

 

[createdtoworship]

From the article:

"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that “New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong”. Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not."

does not apply, but again reread the post, I posted several other articles.

 

[bhsmte]

From the article:

"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that “New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong”. Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not."

Not a shocker.

 

[VirOptimus]

once again please provide evidence of macro evolution, evolution between two genras. This will be one of the laws of science we need, which is observation. A theory cannot be tested without observation.

Reread my question and answer it.