Evidence for macro-evolution

[Estrid]

Doesn't matter. You still can get modern human genetic diversity from a single couple. You have to invent later miraculous changes to genes solely to explain away the disagreement with real genetics.

"Cannot"

 

[AV1611VET]

The scientists themselves never said anything but "maybe."

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

The scientists themselves said two words that aided and abetted this hoax: "Harold" and "cookii."

It happens frequently.

Mistakes?

But changing labels doesn't change reality.

And I'm glad about that.

Else the sky would be a solid dome, the sun would revolve around the earth, and we'd all start out as fetuses.

And the Jews would be ignorant, desert dwelling nomads with no Promised Land.

And in the end, we'd all die and go into annihilation.

 

[sfs]

"Cannot"

Yeah, cannot. [Wanders off to edit post...]

 

[Hans Blaster]

As Zenith put it, shouldn't the quality go in before the name goes on?

We had Zenith and it was always breaking down. Went to the shop several times. New tubes, etc. (Let's not talk about the reception.) The colored lighting of the walls on the Enterprise were a shock when I finally saw Star Trek on a different TV.

 

[Shemjaza]

Okay, thanks.

For the record, I believe you.



Question:

When it was:

1. proposed as an ape
2. had no skull to study
3. with genetic studies pending that would have properly identified it

... why was it given a scientific name?

Some combination of excitement and fame seeking. Finding a new pig isn't particularly impressive, finding a new human ancestor is universally more impressive, with the added bonus of making the USA relevant to human evolutionary history.

I've never seen any indication that Nebraska man was a deliberate fake, merely an enthusiastic error.

As to how did it get a scientific name? They aren't awarded by the ultra board of science... anyone can name something, but it's unlikely others with recognise it. This sort of thing can take a while as different scientists review and publish research and justifications.

The media can get involved as well to give a misleading interpretation of evidence and events.


An interesting modern example is the Denisova fossils... we have no skull, but there has been genetic studies done. Scientists haven't given it a scientific species name because they don't know for sure if it's a variation of modern humans, Neanderthals or an example of the Homo longi species.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some combination of excitement and fame seeking. Finding a new pig isn't particularly impressive, finding a new human ancestor is universally more impressive, with the added bonus of making the USA relevant to human evolutionary history.

I've never seen any indication that Nebraska man was a deliberate fake, merely an enthusiastic error.

As to how did it get a scientific name? They aren't awarded by the ultra board of science... anyone can name something, but it's unlikely others with recognise it. This sort of thing can take a while as different scientists review and publish research and justifications.

The media can get involved as well to give a misleading interpretation of evidence and events.


An interesting modern example is the Denisova fossils... we have no skull, but there has been genetic studies done. Scientists haven't given it a scientific species name because they don't know for sure if it's a variation of modern humans, Neanderthals or an example of the Homo longi species.

Okay, thanks.

 

[FredVB]

The thing about evidence of bottlenecks in ancestry, you do not know about the others in a family tree, other than there being such presumed, for others that are related. It is not evident in our genetic makeup. It is known from our genetic makeup that once our human ancestors were so few. But we can decide it was a bottleneck event if we want to.

Humans almost went extinct as population declined to only 1,280 people

For years, scientists have been puzzled by an elusive gap in the African and Eurasian fossil records of modern humans.

www.earth.com

 

[driewerf]

If you're referring to me as being "profoundly ignorant or intellectually dishonest or mentally weak or simply insane" --- I'm not a YEC.

One doesn't need to be a YEC for the other qualifications to be applicable.

 

[AV1611VET]

One doesn't need to be a YEC for the other qualifications to be applicable. View attachment 344725

No argument there!

 

[dlamberth]

--- I'm not a YEC.

Your insistence on a 6000 year time line doesn't match up with the claim.

 

[Estrid]

Your insistence on a 6000 year time line doesn't match up with the claim.

It's aka 'distinction without a difference "

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not a YEC.

Your insistence on a 6000 year time line doesn't match up with the claim.

1. How old do YECs say the earth is?

2. How old do I say the earth is?

3. Does that qualify me for being a YEC?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's aka 'distinction without a difference "

 

[dlamberth]

1. How old do YECs say the earth is?

2. How old do I say the earth is?

3. Does that qualify me for being a YEC?

All of your of events are based on a 6000 year time line. Take the dating of the Genesis Flood for example, or the Red Sea crossing, or your affirming many times over Ussher's accounting of the date of creation. Your dating is all based on that 6000 year time line. You are a YEC, clearly.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of your of events are based on a 6000 year time line.

So?

You are a YEC, clearly.

I see.

Here, let me answer those questions for you:

QUESTION: How old do YECs say the earth is?
ANSWER: 6000 - 10,000 years old.

QUESTION: How old do I say the earth is?
ANSWER: As old as God willed it.

QUESTION: Does that qualify me for being a YEC?
ANSWER: No.

I lost my qualification for being a YEC when I started agreeing with academia that some things are older than the hills.

Question: Are YECs the same as Embedded Agers?

If not, what's the difference?

 

[dlamberth]

So?



I see.

Here, let me answer those questions for you:

QUESTION: How old do YECs say the earth is?
ANSWER: 6000 - 10,000 years old.

QUESTION: How old do I say the earth is?
ANSWER: As old as God willed it.

QUESTION: Does that qualify me for being a YEC?
ANSWER: No.

I lost my qualification for being a YEC when I started agreeing with academia that some things are older than the hills.

Question: Are YECs the same as Embedded Agers?

If not, what's the difference?

The time frame you use is not based on an old earth. It's based on the Bible's 6000 time line. That makes you a YEC. I don't see any other way around it. Even when the supposed God initiated embedded age event happened, for you that's based on a young earth time line. Wasn't it right after the Genesis Flood when you say that God cleaned up his mess that He embedded age? Which was when? You can't even say when unless its based on a young earth time line. That's YEC stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wasn't it right after the Genesis Flood when you say that God cleaned up his mess that He embedded age?

No.

You must have me mixed up with someone else.

God embedded age into the earth at the moment of creation.

In 4004 BC.

The time frame you use is not based on an old earth.

Correct.

The time frame I use is based on Usher's chronology.

In other words, on the genealogies.

Not on an old earth.

 

[driewerf]

So?



I see.

Here, let me answer those questions for you:

QUESTION: How old do YECs say the earth is?
ANSWER: 6000 - 10,000 years old.

QUESTION: How old do I say the earth is?
ANSWER: As old as God willed it.

QUESTION: Does that qualify me for being a YEC?
ANSWER: No.

I lost my qualification for being a YEC when I started agreeing with academia that some things are older than the hills.

Question: Are YECs the same as Embedded Agers?

If not, what's the difference?

Both you and creationists claim the Universe to be created. This makes you a creationist.
Both you and YECs claim the hypothetical creation event happened 6000 years ago. That makes you a YEC.
The embedded age nonsense is just that: nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Both you and creationists claim the Universe to be created. This makes you a creationist.
Both you and YECs claim the hypothetical creation event happened 6000 years ago. That makes you a YEC.

If you want to parse it, parse it correctly.

1. Both I and YECs claim the universe to be created.

2. YECs claim a young earth, I don't.

Therefore I don't fit all the criteria for YEC.

You're making what I believe into what is called a TRUE BOOLEAN; when, in fact it isn't.

The embedded age nonsense is just that: nonsense.

I'll ask again:

If Embedded Age = YEC, does YEC = Embedded Age?

* Embedded Age = age without history.

 

[Estrid]

The time frame you use is not based on an old earth. It's based on the Bible's 6000 time line. That makes you a YEC. I don't see any other way around it. Even when the supposed God initiated embedded age event happened, for you that's based on a young earth time line. Wasn't it right after the Genesis Flood when you say that God cleaned up his mess that He embedded age? Which was when? You can't even say when unless its based on a young earth time line. That's YEC stuff.

Except the flood isn't a when.