Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[Subduction Zone]

My question is are you willing to learn? If you aren't you don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion.

Ditto

You can't respond "Ditto" to that post when you are demonstrably wrong. You disagree with a concept that you do not comprehend. I have seen only very poor examples of your understanding of the theory of evolution and of science in general. Again, people here are willing to help you to understand, but first you must be willing to learn.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The Bible says that the earth was created on the first day.

No, on the first day God said "Let there be light, and there was light" then God separated the light from the darkness, creating day and night.

None of the Scripture you provided says that God created the earth ex nihilo on the first day.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You can't respond "Ditto" to that post when you are demonstrably wrong. You disagree with a concept that you do not comprehend. I have seen only very poor examples of your understanding of the theory of evolution and of science in general. Again, people here are willing to help you to understand, but first you must be willing to learn.

Sometimes I wonder how some people got through highschool without the most basic understanding of science. I went to a Catholic school and biology, physics and chemistry were all required courses.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So now we are going to pull the "If you don't agree with me, you aren't very intelligent" strategy?

More desperation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So now we are going to pull the "If you don't agree with me, you aren't very intelligent" strategy?

More desperation.

Lacking knowledge in something is not the same thing as being unintelligent. Your statements in this thread demonstrate a lack of understanding as to science--that says nothing for or against your intellect.

You've made assertions which people, educated and knowledgeable about such things, have addressed as being faulty. If a mechanic tells you there's something wrong with your radiator, and you insist that radiators and spark plugs are the same thing, the mechanic is going to explain to you that you clearly don't know anything about automobiles.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[USincognito]

Nope, science.

A simple example. A bull and a cow in the field by themselves, the bull does his thing with the cow and a few months later they are no longer buy themselves, a calf is born. That is proof it takes mating whether it be artificial or natural to make the calf....hands down, no doubt about it....proof. I could give you millions of examples. Science does deal in proof.

Sigh... You must be unaware of the principle of falsification. In order for a proposition to e scientific, there must always be room for potential falsification no matter how far fetched or unlikely it may be. That could be something like an observation that falsifies heliocentrism or that the cow in your scenario underwent a parthenogenetic pregnancy. The page, especially the part I'm going to quote sum it up pretty succinctly.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

Or the Readers Digest version - science doesn't do proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes I wonder how some people got through highschool without the most basic understanding of science. I went to a Catholic school and biology, physics and chemistry were all required courses.

And the Catholics accept evolution. They also have produced some top notch scientists. I wonder how many top notch scientists have come from the fundamentalists. I am sure that there are some, but I have a feeling that they will be rather grossly under represented.

 

[USincognito]

Says you. What facts?

Faunal succesion
Radiometric dating
Known sedimentation rates
Plate tecontics
The ages of the Hawaiian Islands
Numerous lines of evidence from evolutionary biology
The buildup of Helium 3 on rocks taken from the moon and found in the Atacama desert.

that's just a handful of the facts that contradict a recent, six day creation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Lacking knowledge in something is not the same thing as being unintelligent. Your statements in this thread demonstrate a lack of understanding as to science--that says nothing for or against your intellect.

You've made assertions which people, educated and knowledgeable about such things, have addressed as being faulty. If a mechanic tells you there's something wrong with your radiator, and you insist that radiators and spark plugs are the same thing, the mechanic is going to explain to you that you clearly don't know anything about automobiles.

-CryptoLutheran

More picky... I can't seem to get much of anything right....or maybe it's not me.

knowl·edge·a·ble
ˈnäləjəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: knowledgeable; adjective: knowledgable

intelligent and well informed.

Close enough or at the very least I think I made my point just fine.

BTW, could I see an example of the following quote so I can make sure you are seeing things correctly? Judging from some of the posts here, probably best to double check.

I have seen only very poor examples of your understanding of the theory of evolution and of science in general.

 

[USincognito]

It's been tested and falsified. It's been shown not to happen.

Please. Do go on. And don't spare any details.

The mechanism for advancing a species does not exist in nature.

1. Species don't "advance", whatever that is supposed to mean.
2. If you mean evolve, then the mechanism not only exists, it's understood quite well - mutations.

The fossil record is entirely manipulated to show transition where none existed.

More vacuous rhetoric. Give us examples or be shown to be talking through your hat.

What biology tells us is that there are limits of speciation beyond which sterility always occurs. There are boundaries to change.

It does? Where does it do that? What are these limits and what is the mechanism that causes the limitations? What are the boundaries to change and what is the mechanism that causes them to limit change?

You guys seem to think you can spew a bunch of science sounding boileplate that you've heard from professional Creationists, but if you want anything you say to be taken seriously, you need to be able to defend those assertions in your own words.

 

[USincognito]

IOf course, with "climate change" the "experts" got caught cooking the books and manipulating data, and all of their models have failed. One doesn't have to be religious to know that when people conspire to manipulate evidence that the evidence must go against their claims.

When did that happen? You're not referring to the Climategate urban legend are you? You do realize that six different investigations showed no wrong doing, don't you?

We didn't go into an ice age in the late sixties,

Since there's so much wrong in one sentence fragment, we probably need to.
1. The Ice Age myth is from the mid 70s, not the late 60s.
2. It's an urban legend among deniers who repeat it despite the fact that it's been debunked a long time ago.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

 

[ViaCrucis]

More picky... I can't seem to get much of anything right....or maybe it's not me.

knowl·edge·a·ble
ˈnäləjəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: knowledgeable; adjective: knowledgable

intelligent and well informed.

Close enough or at the very least I think I made my point just fine

If you showed me a jet engine, I wouldn't have a clue what to make of it. I know absolutely nothing about jet engines. Does that mean I'm an unintelligent person? I know absolutely nothing about Calculus or Trigonometry, I never made it past basic algebra in school and if you were to have me do long division I'd almost certainly do poorly--I am not knowledgeable about mathematics. Does that make me an unintelligent person? Or am I simply lacking in knowledge about certain topics.

BTW, could I see an example of the following quote so I can make sure you are seeing things correctly? Judging from some of the posts here, probably best to double check.

You spoke of "proof", science does not deal in proofs. The scientific method isn't used to prove something, the scientific method is used to make observations, to test hypotheses, and make predictions. Science deals in data, evidence, and when a theory has consistent results in predicted outcomes based on observation and falsifiable hypotheses the theory is considered to be true--but new data, new observations might result in the need to modify the theory or even to discard the old theory in favor of a new one that accounts for the new data and the new observations. Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs, there is no scientific version of 2+2=4. That's why proofs are in the realm of mathematics, mathematics deals in proofs, absolute proofs; that 2+2=4 will never change based on new observations, there is no theory.

You can demonstrate something with science, you can explain how a thing works with science after you have observed, tested, made hypotheses and show predictable outcomes. We can show that mating results in offspring between a cow and a bull by testing it, not simply by leaving a cow and a bull alone together, but by also having controls--we'd need to keep a cow alone without contact from a bull. And then if we wanted to know how a bull and a cow results in a cow having a calf, we'd need to find out why that is, is there something about the bull itself, does the bull do something with the cow? Does the bull's sperm play a role? Would a cow become pregnant if we artificially inseminated the cow? These are the ways science operates.

Science does not say Bull+Cow=Calf.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sigh... You must be unaware of the principle of falsification. In order for a proposition to e scientific, there must always be room for potential falsification no matter how far fetched or unlikely it may be. That could be something like an observation that falsifies heliocentrism or that the cow in your scenario underwent a parthenogenetic pregnancy. The page, especially the part I'm going to quote sum it up pretty succinctly.

For all intents and purposes your little oddity changes nothing.

I shouldn't even bother replying to that but to snatch some unusual occurrence out of the air when we are talking in general terms here is just another desperate little attempt. Try to understand the fact there are rules and exceptions to rules, just because their are exceptions, does not mean they change the rule.

Have you seen some of the posts popping up? As first I didn't take it to seriously but I'm now convinced, this is the kind of pettiness one gets when they simply won't allow themselves to be swayed by some. The equivalent of a 3 year old throwing a fit. .

 

[Kenny'sID]

You spoke of "proof", science does not deal in proofs

This is an ongoing problem, so just know I have the nerve to disagree with that and let it go. It'll just be a waste of your time and energy to keep repeating it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your jaw is too small for wisdom teeth, that's why you have to get them removed, but those teeth were essential to your ancestors.

In your imagination, sure. Everyone needed a ton more molars.

 

[USincognito]

For all intents and purposes your little oddity changes nothing.

"My 'little oddity"? To what are you referring?

I shouldn't even bother replying to that but to snatch some unusual occurrence out of the air when we are talking in general terms here is just another desperate little attempt. Try to understand the fact there are rules and exceptions to rules, just because their are exceptions, does not mean they change the rule.

Have you seen some of the posts popping up? As first I didn't take it to seriously but I'm now convinced, this is the kind of pettiness one gets when they simply won't allow themselves to be swayed by some. The equivalent of a 3 year old throwing a fit. .

I'm sorry, but is this rambling gibberish supposed to address the fact that, because of the principle of falsification, nothing in science is ever "proven"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is an ongoing problem, so just know I have the nerve to disagree with that and let it go. It'll just be a waste of your time and energy to keep repeating it.

And your disagreement with that demonstrates your lack of knowledge about what science is and how science works. This isn't a "agree to disagree" issue. You can insist all you want that radiators and spark plugs are the same thing, but you'll be wrong every time you insist on it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kenny'sID]

"My 'little oddity"? To what are you referring?

I'm sorry, but is this rambling gibberish supposed to address the fact that, because of the principle of falsification, nothing in science is ever "proven"?

If you can't put it together from a clear post, I doubt repeating it with another clear post will change a thing.

 

[USincognito]

Look at all the canines we have. Look at all the felines. Each reproduced after its kind.

What is it with Creationists and limiting their example of "kinds" to horsies, moo cows and kitty cats? But since you bring up canines and felines.

1. Is a hyena a canine or a feline.
2. Bears, sea lions and weasels are all Caniformia.

They do not magically acquire new traits and encode them into the reproductive system, as evolution would require. Any trait found in the offspring would have come from one or both parents.

You're right, they don't magically acquire new traits. The process is via mutation and it's a process we understand quite well. And no, you're simply wrong. Every human, for example, is born with ~60 novel mutations not found in either parent.

Now my question to you. If benevolent mutations can advance a species, why are fruit flies radiated over 50,000 generations still fruit flies? Why didn't evolution produce a single new characteristic; only deformities?

The word you're so desperately looking for is "beneficial", not benevolent. If you can't even use proper terminology, how do you expect any of us to take you seriously? As far as the radiation mutation experiments with Drosophila melanogaster, no one ever told you the purpose of them was never to "turn them into something else"?

 

[USincognito]

If you can't put it together from a clear post, I doubt repeating it with another clear post will change a thing.

More verbal judo I see. Ah well, consistently try to avoid any question or issue you can't dance and prance around so this should be interesting...

Is this skull "fully ape" or "fully human" and why do you conclude as you do?