Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[Subduction Zone]

And they don't agree on what or who Lucy is.

Actually they do. You found some outliers is all, and you could not eve support your claims. In other words you in effect admitted that you were wrong about your claims.

And the fact is until you prove otherwise with something much much stronger than false claims Lucy is very strong evidence for human evolution. And she is just one piece of countless fossils. That is why we know that you are wrong and all that you have is mere belief and denial.

 

[HitchSlap]

In the loop or out, we came from the dust of the earth; not the seed of an animal.

Incorrect. We’re made of star stuff. Stars died so that you might live.

 

[VirOptimus]

Here in reality? I thought you were a Christian.

And God classified humans as entirely different than animals. He named the first humans. He breathed life into them. He gave us dominion over the animals. So how can we be animals?

Im an atheist.

 

[Frank Robert]

I didn't get it from any site. I got it from scientists who write books.

I hate to tell you this. The books you read are either unreliable or you grossly misinterpret what you read. If you take just a few minutes and consult known reliable education sites you would be able to compare with the books you read.

 

[Frank Robert]

No, humans are apes. Chimpanzees are apes too. And we are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas.

I agree that you can interpret that way, but it is simply a taxonomy classification stretching back 5-6 millions of years to when humans split from apes.

 

[Frank Robert]

And I thought they didn't use the term "missing link."? Hmmm...

If you read the one page article I linked to you will learn what they claim about "missing links" which is identical to what I said about missing links in a previous post.

 

[MIDutch]

Not by God's definition.

Which god?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that you can interpret that way, but it is simply a taxonomy classification stretching back 5-6 millions of years to when humans split from apes.

There is no "splitting from" in evolution. One cannot evolve out of one's heritage. For example, everyone knows that we are mammals. That is because the common ancestors that we share with other mammals was a mammal. Linnaean taxonomy still has creationist overtones to it. Present day biologists use cladistics. It is far more consistent in describing various populations.

We are in the Family Hominidae. Those are the great apes. Also know as the hominids. That is a subset of the Super Family Hominoidea. The apes. The Hominidae split into Homininae the group consisting of man, chimps and bonobos, and gorillas and into the Poginae, the orangutans. Please note the both groups are still members of Hominidae. Homininae then split into Gorillini (one guess) and Hominini. That last group is us and the chimps and bonobos. Hominini split into Pan, the chimps and bonobos and what became Homo, all of the species of man. Please note all of these groups are still members of Hominidae, the Great Apes.

Hominidae - Wikipedia

 

[AV1611VET]

Which god?

You're asking a Christian "which god"? Really?

 

[Frank Robert]

There is no "splitting from" in evolution. One cannot evolve out of one's heritage. For example, everyone knows that we are mammals. That is because the common ancestors that we share with other mammals was a mammal. Linnaean taxonomy still has creationist overtones to it. Present day biologists use cladistics. It is far more consistent in describing various populations.

We are in the Family Hominidae. Those are the great apes. Also know as the hominids. That is a subset of the Super Family Hominoidea. The apes. The Hominidae split into Homininae the group consisting of man, chimps and bonobos, and gorillas and into the Poginae, the orangutans. Please note the both groups are still members of Hominidae. Homininae then split into Gorillini (one guess) and Hominini. That last group is us and the chimps and bonobos. Hominini split into Pan, the chimps and bonobos and what became Homo, all of the species of man. Please note all of these groups are still members of Hominidae, the Great Apes.

Hominidae - Wikipedia

I agree with you humans evolved from an ape ancestor so humans have a taxonomic classification as apes but it is not the ancestral similarities between humans and apes that make us human it is the differences. Insisting on a taxonomic classification among Christians who do not accept evolution is meaningless and a waste of time.

 

[DamianWarS]

I was quoting from Answers in Genesis: "Dinosaurs were created by God on day six of creation, approximately 6,000 years ago." Ken Ham has his own version of genesis. I recall someone labeling Ham's Ark Encounter as where Christianity meets Jurastic Park.

I get that part, but when does this turn into adding to scripture that scripture itself doesn't say? We all can quote 1000 articles by 1000 people that say whatever we want them to say but does the bible support this? or are we just saying what we want the bible to say? I don't think the text is broken that we need to fix it. When we try and force an account to include all this stuff it doesn't say then we are manipulating it and adding to scripture. probably best to stick to the words as they are rather than Ken Ham's version or someone else's version. We already have the right version.

Reasons for not including dinosaurs in the ark is because the wide thought is that dinosaurs were extinct. But this thought conflicts with a YE's perspective so to reconcile this the YE perspective will cram all these things into the text to keep it alive that would otherwise not make sense. This turns agenda driven not exegetically or critically driven and certainly not scientifically driven. and it produces odd stuff we should be avoiding, stuff like how did kangaroos get to Australia? Ken Ham says they floated over. So where in the bible does it say kangaroos floated over to Australia? it doesn't and because this is prehistory for the Hebrews we really have no businesses making up stories to force reconcile the accounts because it's irresponsible and it takes the focus off of the account itself to these made-up stories, like kangaroos floating on logs to Australia or baby T-Rexs on the ark. The account of the ark is not there so we can scrutinize what was on it, it is there to point to us a redemptive plan of God that he manifests through the Ark narrative literal or not.

Was there a T-rex on the ark? if we have degraded the text to questions like these then we completely missed the point of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with you humans evolved from an ape ancestor so humans have a taxonomic classification as apes but it is not the ancestral similarities between humans and apes that make us human it is the differences. Insisting on a taxonomic classification among Christians who do not accept evolution is meaningless and a waste of time.

What are the supposed "differences"? The problem is that your classification system is going to rely on a series of special pleading fallacies. Chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to Gorillas. As a result if they are apes we are apes, or if we are not apes by the same logic they are not apes. The same as we go up to the split between orangs and the group of man, chimps, and gorillas. And then one more set of special pleading fallacies when you go up to the the great apes and gibbons. It is better to simply use reality even if the creationists object.

By the way, please do not conflate "Christians" and creationists. Worldwide most Christians are not creationists. Creationism is largely an American disease.

 

[renniks]

No, humans are apes. Chimpanzees are apes too. And we are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas.

Apparently, you two have two different interpretations. Let me help. We are neither.

 

[renniks]

Actually they do. You found some outliers is all, and you could not eve support your claims. In other words you in effect admitted that you were wrong about your claims.

And the fact is until you prove otherwise with something much much stronger than false claims Lucy is very strong evidence for human evolution. And she is just one piece of countless fossils. That is why we know that you are wrong and all that you have is mere belief and denial.

Your whole argument boils down to you knowing more than the scientists who disagree with that it's a legitimate species. Quite amusing.

 

[renniks]

Im an atheist.

Then why do you keep arguing for the Eucharist?

 

[renniks]

I hate to tell you this. The books you read are either unreliable or you grossly misinterpret what you read. If you take just a few minutes and consult known reliable education sites you would be able to compare with the books you read.

Well, that is your opinion for whatever it's worth, probably as much as I paid for it...

 

[DamianWarS]

Right, so we all have an agenda and all are bias.

Exactly.

the problem with saying it's all agenda-driven and everyone has a bias is it's not productive to the conversation. To start, doesn't this mean this very response you have given "Exactly." is also agenda-driven and a bias? So how can I trust it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently, you two have two different interpretations. Let me help. We are neither.

And once again you are demonstrably wrong.

Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your whole argument boils down to you knowing more than the scientists who disagree with that it's a legitimate species. Quite amusing.

Incorrect. You could not even show that any scientists disagree with it. And if you did my argument would boil down to which scientist can be shown to be more reliable in this matter.

By the way, it is an instant loss to refer to any "scientists" from sites like AiG. Creationist sites disqualify themselves by requiring their workers to vow to not use the scientific method. It is pretty hard to claim that one's work is "science" when one swears not do do science.

 

[DamianWarS]

The same as we go up to the split between orangs and the group of man

ironically the word "orang" is from Malay and it means "person" orangutan means "person of the forest" with "utan" from another dialect (Sumatran based) from the more common Malay "hutan" meaning forest. If you catch Attenborough saying it he will actually say them like two words in their proper pronunciation "orang utan".... but I digress