Denying all evidence

[Calypsis4]

In other news, creationists believe that evolutionists like to pepper their posts with personal attacks while refusing whatsoever to engage with their actual arguments.

Methinks they've just been staring in the mirror too long.

And neither are you telling the truth, Shenren. You didn't even bother looking at the documentation for my positions which are posted for all to see and examine for themselves. It's clear you did not read my other posts.

I didn't attack him, I stated clearly that I disagree with his shallow positions and I don't think anyone should heed the errors in his conclusions.

Lastly, I think you have been listening to the wrong voices too long and that is why you are poisoned against God's Word which teaches a six day creation and not a word about evolution anywhere.

 

[Calypsis4]

Its good that you posted the picture. Now everybody can have a look at the legs in dolphins.

Those are legs? I just have one thing to say about that:

Carry on, soldier.

 

[Merlin]

It honestly baffles me how Christians can absolutely deny every single shred of evidence in existence in order to support the infallibility of the Bible. We are discussing in Apologetics whether the Bible is inerrant, and we have gotten to the issue of Hebrew Cosmology.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7491350/

Hentenza has beyond all conceivable imagination made himself believe the Bible is 100% infallible, and that the Flat Earth, Geocentric model of the ancient Hebrews never existed. That they knew before the Greeks even posed the idea that the Earth was spherical and heliocentric.

Despite showing pictures, links, evidence, etc. to the contrary.

How should we deal with this people who obviously do not value education in the slightest?

the bible is infallable.
the bible does not teach of a flat earth
both heliocentric and geocentric are actually wrong, but the bible claims neither.
the bible is not a book of science.

 

[laconicstudent]

I think the quote in my signature should become this subforum's motto.

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."

--Plato


Creationism is so sad.

 

[Calypsis4]

The inferred relationship between dinosaurs and birds is based largely on morphology. Fossils like Sinosauropteryx show that dinosaurs had feathers just like birds:

It's pretty hard to use DNA to show that birds and dinosaurs are related only because DNA doesn't preserve well in the fossil record.

Really? Try telling that to Dr. May Schwietzer a la her discovery of soft tissue and blood in a T-Tex fossil. More has been discovered since then (ex. the hadrosaur fossil), so don't try and spin this one on me.

Then again, birds do retain the DNA of their dinosaurian ancestors, which can be manipulated to produce teeth, scales, and long tails, just as their ancestors had.

Then do so. I challenge you. Just try to turn a scale into a feather...of any creature. Have at it.

You are saying that this:

...is a transition of a bird into a dinosuar? You are desperate. Show the readers how those bristles became feathers and just how that happened genetically. Document it.

What you are not telling the readers about the Sinosauropteryx is that it supposedly "existed 25 million years after undisputed bird fossils. Thus, its supposed 'protofeathers' may have had nothing to do with real feathers, which according to evolutionists existed long before these supposed evolutionary precursors came on the scene."(quote from ICR). So big deal.

Just saying so doesn't make it true.

God's Word says so. What He says is final. The scriptures teach the world was made in 6 days and both Moses (Exodus 20:11) and Jesus (Mark 10:6) confirmed it and every other statement touching on the subject made by Jesus disciples also establish that creation. There is no hint anywhere in the Bible that those characters and/or the events and occurences mentioned were anything less that literal/historical. You just don't believe it. You would rather believe the word of those who hate God's Word.

But how you interpret the Bible IS your opinion. You have no more unfettered access to the original intention of the Bible than I do.

This isn't opinion. The early church believed in the six day creation of the world and there wasn't any debate about that fact among them. That position was held by the Christian world until the age of Lyell and later Darwin. But the tide changed and the prophesied apostasy of the professing church is in full view. There will be consequences for that unbelief for all who reject what the Lord clearly told us.

Oh, what an excellent, iron-clad argument.

Considering all else I've posted on the issue....quite.

Another awe-inspiring refutation.

You don't care what my refutations are nor the documentation provided you.

Am I detecting a hint of anger? Why are YECs always so angry?

(1) Calypsis4 is not the subject of this debate. (2) I am not angry, I am having fun.

Femora. The plural of femur is femora.
I guess if you don't want to believe that the bone that sticks out of the hip-socket is the thigh bone, there's no convincing you.

and 1 + 1 = 2.

You're right. I am an ex-evolutionist and if you think for even a second that your unbelievably shallow arguments are going to convince any ex-evolutionist who has looked at these issues over and over again for decades you're only fooling yourself.

So tell me what you learned in college about catastrophic flood sequences. What do they look like?

And how much, if any, of John Morris's video clip did you view? Did you bother viewing any of it or any of the other variously related videos in the same section? The truth is that you don't care about answers...at least not answers that refute your ridiculous notion of uniformitarian, long-age theories.

... also tend to preserve delicate fossils like this?

That is the nature of the beast...as the saying goes. I have studied flood geology for as long as I've been a creationist and I know the many different effects that the geology of the earth can display after such phenomena including what you just illustrated above. It is a matter of timing...which it seems you Darwinians would care about most..but when it comes to the Noahic deluge you somehow all develop amnesia and forget that there is a beginning, a procession, and an ending effect that floods exert on earths stratigraphy.

The answer is no. Feather impressions, trackways, and invertebrate fossils -- such as those preserved in the Solnhofen laggerstatten where Archaeopteryx was found -- are only preserved in quiet, undisturbed environments.

Then give one observed example as to a similar organism was fossilized by the same method.

You sure are mean. Is that Christ's love you're reflecting?

No, I am not mean. I am firm. Jesus rebuked those who degenerated from the truth (Matt. 23) and (Acts 13:9-10) you are no different. Was Jesus any less loving as a person for upbraiding those individuals who were lying about God's Word? Nope. Was Paul unloving when he used such strong language against the person mentioned in Acts? Nope. You just don't like being confronted with the truth.

Hey, ignore me if you like. Then again, I'm a palaeontologist with PhD training, unlike C4, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to things like geology and the fossil record.

I doesn't matter what you are. You are not telling the truth about the origins of our world. God told us the truth and you have rejected it.

 

[Calypsis4]

Most features thought to be unique to aircraft, for example the spoiler.in which the most function is utilized, in decent, deceleration and turning, are also found on cars, and even racing boats Which serves a minimalistic function compared to aircraft.

Your analogies between similarity of function in living organisms and similarity of function in intelligently designed machines is excellent. But I don't think you will convince those who refuse to be convinced. The lure of Darwinism is addictive to those who have drunk deeply of its poison.

Nonetheless, I encourage you to keep making such comparisons because it is based upon pure common sense. Machinery in the 'genotype' world is every bit as complex as that in the 'phenotype'. Nature will assemble neither without an intelligent Engineer to do it nor can they demonstrate that she can. The Bible tells us who that Engineer is.

 

[SkyWriting]

<snip>
but they're pretty much considered crack-pots these days by 99% of palaeontologists. <snip>

That alone gives them a decent chance of being correct.

 

[Calypsis4]

That alone gives them a decent chance of being correct.

You said it.

Especially those who can't even tell a fin from a leg.

 

[Mallon]

Really? Try telling that to Dr. May Schwietzer a la her discovery of soft tissue and blood in a T-Tex fossil. More has been discovered since then (ex. the hadrosaur fossil), so don't try and spin this one on me.

I assume you mean Dr. Mary Schweitzer, the Christian palaeontologist who said about YECs: "They treat you really bad... They twist your words and they manipulate your data." I'm familiar with her and her work.

Then do so. I challenge you. Just try to turn a scale into a feather...of any creature. Have at it.

It's already been done, actually. You can read the study here, where feathers were grown on chicken feet in place of scales:
Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apop... [Science. 1996] - PubMed result
More info here:
http://faculty.weber.edu/rmeyers/feather devel 2.pdf
I can't help but feel that this research will make no difference to you, though. You clearly have your mind made up. You've already denied that the whales have vestigial thigh bones despite the fact that they're exactly where you'd expect them to be (in the hip socket). And Greg denies that Archaeopteryx doesn't have a pygostyle, even though he clearly doesn't understand what a pygostyle even is. You guys are doing just as the OP says: denying all evidence. I don't expect you to suddenly accept the evidence presented in the papers I just cited when you've paid it little mind to date. You'd rather push your shallow understanding of the Bible on others and condemn them if they don't read it the same way you do. Lately, it's par for the course as far as the fundies around here are concerned.

What you are not telling the readers about the Sinosauropteryx is that it supposedly "existed 25 million years after undisputed bird fossils. Thus, its supposed 'protofeathers' may have had nothing to do with real feathers, which according to evolutionists existed long before these supposed evolutionary precursors came on the scene."(quote from ICR). So big deal.

Whether or not Sinosauropteryx lived before or after Archaeopteryx is irrelevant. The fact is that it is a dinosaur with primitive feathers. In fact, we've found feathers of all types in theropod dinosaurs of all types, ranging from simple, unbranched barbs in primitive forms like Sinosauropteryx to the modern asymmetrical feathers in the more derived Microraptor. That is to say, the entire evolution of the feather is preserved in fossil theropods, from the simple to the complex. Do we know every biochemical step along the way? No. Then again, we don't even understand every biochemical step in the development of a human embryo. I don't presume that stops you from accepting that human development unfolds naturally, otherwise you would surely be lobbying for the teaching of Intelligent Development or somesuch.
More info on feather evolution here:
Feathered dinosaurs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God's Word says so. What He says is final. The scriptures teach the world was made in 6 days and both Moses (Exodus 20:11) and Jesus (Mark 10:6) confirmed it and every other statement touching on the subject made by Jesus disciples also establish that creation. There is no hint anywhere in the Bible that those characters and/or the events and occurences mentioned were anything less that literal/historical. You just don't believe it. You would rather believe the word of those who hate God's Word.

Meh. Luther said the same thing about those who rejected geocentrism. You'd be a heretic in his eyes, too. The fact is that the way the Church interprets the Bible has changed over the years in light of scientific discovery.

The early church believed in the six day creation of the world and there wasn't any debate about that fact among them.

Sure... if you ignore Augustine, Origen, Philo, Maimonides, and all those other 'nobodies' in the early Christian and Jewish churches. Don't let them confound your blanket statement, though.

No, I am not mean. I am firm.

No, you're just mean. Jesus commanded that we speak the truth in love, and there is very little love in you. You write like you're frothing from the mouth.

 

[Mallon]

You said it.

Especially those who can't even tell a fin from a leg.

Cetacean flippers are modified legs, which is why they all contain the same bones.

All vertebrate limbs are homologous.

 

[shernren]

And neither are you telling the truth, Shenren. You didn't even bother looking at the documentation for my positions which are posted for all to see and examine for themselves. It's clear you did not read my other posts.

I didn't attack him, I stated clearly that I disagree with his shallow positions and I don't think anyone should heed the errors in his conclusions.

Lastly, I think you have been listening to the wrong voices too long and that is why you are poisoned against God's Word which teaches a six day creation and not a word about evolution anywhere.

Poisoned against God's Word, eh.

Do you remember this little exchange?

P.S. God Almighty never creates anything disorganized; (Ordo Ex Nihilo).

I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.
(Isaiah 45:5-7)

The only surprise to me is that you actually came back for more.

I love the Bible. I've read it cover to cover. I love teaching it in my university Bible Study group. (In fact, I recently led a study on Genesis 1-3 for new Christians and non-Christians; you'd be surprised how much of a non-issue creationism is for them.) And when creationists try to defend the Bible, I say hurrah, go ahead and defend the Bible - but please read it first, okay?

 

[Greg1234]

Your analogies between similarity of function in living organisms and similarity of function in intelligently designed machines is excellent. But I don't think you will convince those who refuse to be convinced. The lure of Darwinism is addictive to those who have drunk deeply of its poison.

Precisely. It feeds the carnal mind with a carnal origin and justifies itself. Thats where its potency takes root. Its materialism. The force which brought man into this state at the very beginning.

Nonetheless, I encourage you to keep making such comparisons because it is based upon pure common sense. Machinery in the 'genotype' world is every bit as complex as that in the 'phenotype'. Nature will assemble neither without an intelligent Engineer to do it nor can they demonstrate that she can. The Bible tells us who that Engineer is.

.

 

[Greg1234]

...Is that Christ's love you're reflecting?..

...Jesus commanded that we speak the truth in love, and there is very little love in you...

You do know that that is a form of taunting right? This is the first time I've ever seen it been used by a Christian though. When you were saying that YEC's don't go to school, this was the reaction you were stimulating, you were attempting to evoke. And when you get it, you ask if that is Christ like.

Cetacean flippers are modified legs, which is why they all contain the same bones.

A flipper is not a leg chief. Saying that man is modified bacteria doesnt mean that bacteria can turn into men either. Or saying that a whale is a modified hippo doesnt mean that a hippo can turn into a whale. We are already aware of the similar chassis. A flipper doesnt have to be some grotesque, upturned inefficient compilation just so the Darwinist cannot make a comparison. It just has to be a structure to serve its function. The Darwinist comparisons with man and ape did not have to be feared when man was created as man. All that had to be shown is that bacteria cannot turn into men. Nobody today is making a car and a truck trying to use a design which will in no way insinuate that cars can turn into trucks through random shuffling. Its blatantly obvious. At least for them. At least for now.

 

[Mallon]

You do know that that is a form of taunting right? This is the first time I've ever seen it been used by a Christian though. When you were saying that YEC's don't go to school, this was the reaction you were stimulating, you were attempting to evoke. And when you get it, you ask if that is Christ like.

If i insulted you by implying that you are uneducated, then I apologize. But for Pete's sake, when you try to insist that Archaeopteryx has a pygostyle even after you've been corrected by several different people, it doesn't give the impression that you're open to learning.

Speaking of which, I did some more research, and it turns out that whales not only have vestigial thigh bones, but they have even more vestigial shin bones, too:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/struthers.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1

A flipper is not a leg chief.

And yet they are made of exactly the same bones, modified to yield different structures for different modes of life. And so, for all intents and purposes, they are fundamentally the same thing. That's homology.
Try as you might, but your machine analogies just can't be stretched that far no matter how hard you try. Man-made vehicles for traversing water are fundamentally different from those made for traversing land or air. A helicopter is not just a modified car. A submarine is not just a modified bike. Each has been specifically re-designed with all new and innovative parts to suit their own individual purpose. Cars don't have propellers or pressure hulls, for example. And yet mammals as disparate as whales and shrews are made from exactly the same parts, modified here and there to allow them to live in vastly different environments. This fundamental similarity between mammals, and indeed all life, is a prediction of evolution. No other theory about biodiversity makes such a prediction. That's the strength of the theory of evolution: it's ability to predict patterns in life. And it cannot be accounted by simple analogy to non-living, non-reproducing machines that neither compete for resources nor replicate imperfectly. Your superficial comparisons break down when examined in detail.

 

[Greg1234]

And yet they are made of exactly the same bones, modified to yield different structures for different modes of life. And so, for all intents and purposes, they are fundamentally the same thing. That's homology.

There are differences between the bones of a flipper and a leg of a terrestrial mammal and there are similarities. Just as there are with the chassis of a car and a truck. Nested hierarchy, comparative anatomy and homology are three of the same attempt to just look at a car and a truck and say that a truck came from a car.

Try as you might, but your machine analogies just can't be stretched that far no matter how hard you try. Man-made vehicles for traversing water are fundamentally different from those made for traversing land or air. A helicopter is not just a modified car.

And man is not just modified bacteria. This was just given. A whale is not just an underwater mammal and features like the echolocation, air exchange mechanisms, has been attributed to randomly shuffling the DNA of a hippo by the Darwinist. You are building a whale, randomly. Ships have sonar, cars dont. You may call a ship a floating car, but a car can't turn into a ship. The cabin of a car and the cabin of a plane has similarities, but one can accommodate higher altitudes and compression/decompression. A man is not going to search for some wild design just so you and yours cannot insinuate that a car can turn into an airplane. It serves its function.

 

[Sophophile]

There are differences between the bones of a flipper and a leg of a terrestrial mammal and there are similarities.

Yes, Greg, you are correct.

And the pattern of similarities and differences form a nested hierarchy (groups within groups), which is the mathematically necessary pattern for a branching process like evolution.

This is simply because living things only acquire traits by inheritance from their ancestors (parents, grandparents etc); they cannot inherit traits from their siblings, cousins or aunties and uncles. This is just common knowledge.

Just as there are with the chassis of a car and a truck. Nested hierarchy, comparative anatomy and homology are three of the same attempt to just look at a car and a truck and say that a truck came from a car.

No Greg, you are incorrect. For example, the monocoque chassis originated in aircraft in the early 1900s, then spread to landcraft and watercraft. This is not a nested hierarchy, because the monocoque chassis did not stay confined to aircraft.

This is simply because vehicles do not acquire traits by inheritance from ancestors. Instead, traits can be shared amongst completely unrelated vehicles as ideas and methods spread amongst the engineering community. This is just common knowledge.

And man is not just modified bacteria. This was just given. A whale is not just an underwater mammal and features like the echolocation, air exchange mechanisms, has been attributed to randomly shuffling the DNA of a hippo by the Darwinist. You are building a whale, randomly.

A whale is not just an underwater mammal, but it is an underwater mammal, descended from the same ancestor as all other mammals. Whales are not thought to have evolved from hippos, rather, whales and hippos have a common ancestor -- something like this protungulatum:

And evolutionary theory does not propose purely random shuffling of DNA. This is a misrepresentation of the theory, which includes the non-random process of selection.

Ships have sonar, cars dont.

Yes they do, Greg. Ever hear of parking sensors?

You may call a ship a floating car, but a car can't turn into a ship. The cabin of a car and the cabin of a plane has similarities, but one can accommodate higher altitudes and compression/decompression. A man is not going to search for some wild design just so you and yours cannot insinuate that a car can turn into an airplane. It serves its function.

Exactly, Greg, exactly. Cars can't turn into ships or planes because vehicles don't reproduce with variation like living things do. Vehicles are simply a terrible analogy for living things. This is what we have been saying all along.

Cheers
S.

 

[Calypsis4]

Poisoned against God's Word, eh.

Do you remember this little exchange?

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

P.S. God Almighty never creates anything disorganized; (Ordo Ex Nihilo).
​

Originally Posted by God

I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.
(Isaiah 45:5-7)
​

I sure do, my scripture twisting counterpart. And from what perversion of God's Word did you lift that little piece of mistranslation?

You couldn't even get the text number correct. It's Isaiah 45:7 to be exact. Furthermore what it actually says is:

"I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil. I the LORD do all these things."

The only 'calamity' that God brought into the world was the judgment He placed upon the wicked at those times of judgment mentioned in the Old Testament.

But concerning His creation Moses told us that what God did after the creation He pronounced not only 'good' but 'very good'. Genesis 1:31.

good = the Hebrew towb. good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well):--beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease,(Strongs Exhaustive Concordance).

What makes your position so pitiful is the fact that God commanded the New Testament church to do all things decently and in order! (I Corinthians 14:40) yet you believe that this same Creator created a universe in chaos or some degree of calamity.

I don't believe you. Theistic evolutionists have compromised with evil so badly that their sense of time and occurrence is terribly warped.

Einstein: "God did not throw dice" with the universe. (Stephen Hawking). But you are so far from the truth that you believe that He does!

The only surprise to me is that you actually came back for more.

Oh, maybe for nothing more than laughs at how you Darwinians use such tortured logic to 'prove' your goofy theory.

I love the Bible. I've read it cover to cover. I love teaching it in my university Bible Study group. (In fact, I recently led a study on Genesis 1-3 for new Christians and non-Christians; you'd be surprised how much of a non-issue creationism is for them.) And when creationists try to defend the Bible, I say hurrah, go ahead and defend the Bible - but please read it first, okay?

If you love God's Word then why don't you believe it? WHERE, pray tell, do you find a hint of evolutionary teaching anywhere in God's Word? WHERE, pray tell, do you find a hint in any passage of the New Testament that the characters, events, and occurrences mentioned in Genesis are anything less than historical? Where?

 

[Dark_Lite]

It's always fun when people quote a man who believed in an impersonal force that could best be described as Deism in support of creationism...

 

[Calypsis4]

Martin Luther on the creation;

"When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go."​

John Calvin said, &#8220;Albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years. ... God&#8217;s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.&#8221;

Matthew Henry said, "After six days, God ceased from all works of creation. In miracles, he has overruled nature, but never changed its settled course, or added to it."

"Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306&#8211;373) and Basil of Caesarea (329&#8211;379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330&#8211;397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old. " Answersingenesis.com.

So why did all these noted individuals believe in a six day creation of the world. Because that is the plain and open meaning of the scripture without equivocation. Furthermore, there was no such thing as a 'theistic evolutionist' in the world until Darwin.

 

[Mallon]

I think I'll just bow out now. There's clearly no fruitful discussion going on here. I've got more important things to do than to reply to endless appeals to "prove it".