Evolutionists will try to disprove this

[dad]

No dad, that there is an elephant.

OK, I wasn't sure if it was a supposed ape, or claimed ancestor, or man.

 

[dad]

Creationists have redefined tooth as a near compltete skeleton. They weren't lying they are just misleading in their definitions.

Evolution - monkey giving birth to a homosapien [devil making a monkey of you]
Tooth - nearly complete skeleton [something in which, if it had a microscopic cavity, sextillions of galaxies, and suns, and star systems could easily fit in, long as they added a bit of soup]
Proof(evolution) - Nothing will do, ever. see AiG statement of Faith.[something evos don't need, or recognize]
Proof(creationism) - genesis 1:1 [none needed if we are of sound mind]
High preist of Evolution - Evolutionary Biologist [I think the robes come in different kinds, like paleo robes, and theoretical Physicist, and cosmologist, and geologist, etc etc. all a cut of the same cloth, woven with only present fabric]
Evolutionist - Anyone who thinks Evolution is possible [anyone that thinks it took a long time, or didn't involve God]
Satanist- Anyone who believes Evolution is possible [anyone that worships satan]
Not once(in terms of mutation) - 99.9% of the time. [mutations were a part of creations]
Intelliegent design - classic creationism [something that involves intelligence, not the lack of it]
Atheist - monkey giving birth to a homosapien [someone who believes that his beliefs are superior, because they don't involve God]

.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Had to stop it at the "evolution of cutlery" nonsense.

 

[Adoniram]

No, there aren't.

Blinders.

That is a lie.

Blinders.

Um...no, Evolution is in all the schools for the hundred years or so because it's been confirmed for those hundred years or so. Why would they be biased towards something that would make them famous for disproving it?

So far I see you saying a lot of nothing.

Blinders.

Except you haven't shown that we have blinders.

Blinders.

What does this have to do with anything in the topic?

Obviously didn't read my post because I changed the topic. Once again- blinders.

Getting you to write this?

Sorry, not his style. Getting you to pull your blinders on a little tighter? Definitely his style.

Nothing you have said is worth thinking about, because you haven't said anything.

Blinders.

Take your evangelisation and put it where it belongs. In the GA forum.

Nothing I said there was evangelism. It was merely food for thought; encouragement for people to consider a possibility. Once again- blinders.




My apologies in advance to other readers for responding to this poster in the same tone he used toward me.

 

[USincognito]

Any chance you could respond to my post in the same tone I used?

 

[TheBear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI

This guy is good.

Meh... I didn't think so. I watched the video in it's entirety. To me, his arguments were a bunch of straw men, misrepresentations, and illogical leaps to non sequitur conclusions - most of which have already been pointed out in this thread.

He knows more than me to disprove evolution.

How does one disprove something that isn't proved?


Here's the key to all this.....

Don't rely on other people to do your thinking for you. Think for yourself. Do the research. Look at the evidence. Ask questions. Be willing to learn new things.

Watch it, think about it, and try to convince me other wise.

It was somewhat painful to sit through, but I watched the whole thing.

 

[Adoniram]

That wasn't true when it was first said a quarter century ago, and it's certainly not true now. How would you fit all the fossils here into a coffin? The Neandertal specimens alone include several nearly-complete skeletons - generally speaking, coffins are designed to hold one skeleton.

You are right, there are quite a lot of tiny pieces, a few pieces that are a little larger, and a number of skulls. I will make a concession, they would all fit into the bed of a pickup truck. But in viewing all of those pieces, and I did look at every one of them, I saw only two or three which had nearly complete skeletons. So, my point remains: they construct a picture of what these "people?" looked like from just a skull, or just a digit, or just a femur, and a whole lot of speculation. They claim this is "proof" of evolution. Proof based on speculation? Dubious at best.

As for the Neanderthal, recent research involving DNA evidence indicates that he is fully human. {M. Lubenow, "Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An Evaluation," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12(1):87-97 (1998).}
It has been discovered that he suffered from the bone disease called rickets, which accounts for his often stooped appearance. In the absence of the disease, he stood fully upright and had features no different than modern man. {F. Ivanhoe, Nature, 227:577(1970)} {E. Trunkaus and W.W. Howells, Scientific American, 241(6):118(1979).}

Fossil hominids aren't the result of "a tooth" and a lot of imagination. Some of them are astoundingly complete.

Granted, there are a few skeletons that are somewhat complete. I did not say there weren't. What I did say is that there are cases where "a large amount of speculation is supported by a tiny amount of evidence," and used an example. But don't take my word for it, consider a statement by the son of Louis Leakey:
"Lucy's skull (Australopithecus afarensis) was so incomplete that most of it was imagination, made of Plaster of Paris, thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to." (Richard Leakey, Director of National Museum in Kenya, "The Weekly Australian," May, 1983.) In an article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Leakey also says "It is overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy champanzee. The evidence for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing." (vol. 22, no. 3, p. 144-145) Unless I'm mistaken, Lucy was touted as one of the shining proofs of evolution.

Stephen J. Gould, noted paleontologist at Harvard says: "What has become of our ladder if there are three co-existing lineages of hominids (Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, and Homo habilis), none clearly derived from one another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth: none becam brainier or more erect as they approached the present day." Natural History, 85:30 (1976).

Doubt has also been cast upon the Java Man and Peking Man as to their linkage in the "human chain," instead placing them in the ape family.

The above are just a few of the statements and conclusions by authorities in the subject which indicate the uncertainty and back-peddling that exists even with the community of evolutionary scientists. I have seen many more. So, one may have to leave Lucy, Java Man, Peking Man, and Neandertal Man out of the pickup, leaving even more room for the others.

Pardon my using a couple of sources which you will probably argue are not secular and therefore biased, but the source does not lesson the validity or reliability of the quote. You will notice the other sources are biased the other direction, which does not lesson their validity either.

 

[corvus_corax]

First of all, I am not going to defend the video.

Good
Because it is the typical falsehoods spread by Christian "Creationists", and thus not noteworthy of defending

It was, needless to say, very juvenile and inflammatory.

Obviously

An easy target

Just like Ham, Hovind and Gish, among others

There are very many better constructed arguments opposing evolution on the web, in books, and on video.

Better constructed?
Yes
More accurate?
Not really

When you see stuff like this video, it basically undermines the efforts of all the others no matter how valid they may be scientifically. {/quote]
Seem is the operative word here

And there are scientifically valid arguments opposing evolution.

Name one

For sure, much of science is indeed black and white

Only to the layman

Explanation can be directly derived from observation

In a properly controlled environment, yes

But there are also a lot of areas that science explores that cannot be laid out in black and white terms, for various reasons.

Actually, those are scientific hypothethes as opposed to Scientific Theory

One being that first hand observation is not possible. Such is the case with evolution.

That, quite simply, is a falsehood
I dont think your Jesus would approve of spreading falsehoods for personal dogma
Evolution
Has
Been
Observed
4 links, four lines of evidence
Read them, educate yourself regarding the actual observed evolution of species

And so, the available evidence must be, and is subject to interpretation.

Sure. I can see that
But the facts of the matter are
1- Allele frequencies in a population DO change over time
and
2- Evolution has been directly observed
Saying otherwise is nothing more than willingly putting on blinders to the reality of evidence surrounding you in the world

In the case of evolution, a large amount of speculation is supported by a tiny amount of evidence.

Only if one discounts the DIRECT observation of evolution

Do you realize that the total amount of fossilized remains discovered to date that evolutionists use to construct all these various human ancestors would fit into a coffin?

Two points-
1- That, as pointed out, is a falsehood. Again, spreading lies for Jesus is (last I read) a "bad thing"
and
2- The fossil record ISNT NEEDED to evidence evolution, since evolution has been DIRECTLY observed, plain and simple

The evidence is all the same, it's just a matter of how it's interpreted and what biases are brought to the table.

Speaking of biases, here's the absolute BEST bias from Creationists-
(and I quote)
"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
IOW, AiG claims that even perceived evidence (such as the OBSERVED evidence of evolution, given above) CANNOT be valid if it (from a Creationist POV) contradicts scripture (and the evidence does so).
Hence, allele frequency change over time resulting in OBSERVED speciation MUST simply be dismissed
IOW, they willingly and eagerly spread falsehoods, as do many Creationists

Evolution is all that schools and universities have taught for over a hundred years so it is natural that these guys are biased toward it. Are they right just because there's more of them?

Not at all, and you should know better than to make such a silly assertion
They are right because (once again), it's been directly observed.

But hey, I really didn't intend to get into the evolution debate with this post.

Yes you did
If you didnt "intend to" then you wouldnt have done so to begin with

My intention was to post on your responses to LuvAslan's comments about Satan. Being Christian, I do of course see where she is coming from. The Bible does say that Satan is the "prince of this world," that he is devious, he is wily, and he is a liar. No doubt, regardless of whether you believe he exists or not, you have surely heard this. What does "prince of this world" mean? Well, from a Biblical sense, it means that he has great influence in the world. Granted, many of you will not recognize this influence because, quite frankly, it's just not the kind of thing you pay attention to.

Great
Take it to the Apologetics forum
THIS is a "Scientific Discussion Forum", nothing else

So how great is the devil's influence? How does the devil's influence manifest itself? The Biblical answer may be quite shocking to some of you. Anything and everything that keeps one from putting the desire to please God at the top of one's goals in life comes as the result of the devil's influence. That is the devil's goal; to draw your focus away from God. And it really doesn't matter to the devil what your focus is on, just as long as it's not on God. Of course, if you're not pleasing God, you've got trouble ahead, at least according to the Bible.

Again, two points-
1- Many many many Christians accept the Theory of Evolution without it interfering with their relationship with God. I sincerely hope you dont conflate them with "the devil"
or the "devil's influence"
2- Many Creatiotionists, under the guise of strict fundamentalism state that Theistic Evolutionists cannot be "true Christians". Heck, Ive even seen this accusation and implication on these very forums.

Potent stuff, huh. It's much easier to say the devil doesn't exist isn't it. Easier to say God doesn't exist either. That way you don't have to think about the consequences of not being devoted to him.

Are you implying that evolution adherents are devoted to the devil>?
I certainly hope not
And if not, then you REALLY need to clarify your position regarding the Devil and evolutionary theory

But go with me here for just a second. Just suppose the devil does exist. The Bible says he does and is fairly detailed as to his characteristics (presumptuous, proud, powerful, wicked, malignant, subtle,deceitful, fierce and cruel), so let's just say he does exist for the sake of discussion. What kind of tactics do you think the devil would employ in leading people away from God? I can think of a few.
First and foremost, I think he would try to convince people that God doesn't exist. Removing God from the equation removes the "problem" of our being subject and accountable to a higher authority. That would leave men accountable only to themselves. It would leave men free to invent their own moral code, which through the years has proven to be quite flexible.

And this has to do with the theory of evolution HOW?
Keep in mind that your response applies to Theistic Evolutionists as well

But how would he achieve this? Let's see, one way would be to help men come up with an explanation for the existence of man on this earth that doesn't require God; that would go a long way wouldn't it.

He would try to convince people that God's Word is not trustworthy. He would say "Did God say that? That can't be true, can it?" He would use that tactic to get people to think that some particular thing is not a sin. He would use it to make people think there is no such thing as hell. He would use that kind of tactic to make people believe they have no need for Jesus. Etc. Etc. His influence in this manner is far and wide.

He would try to convince people that he himself does not exist. After all, if he doesn't exist, what is there to be afraid of.

He would try to introduce an attitude of tolerance toward practices that God has forbidden. He would promote the rise in popularity of "religions" that are not Christ-centered.

Apologetics
Great
Take it to the correct forum and leave the Scientific Discussion Forum out of Apologetic's arguments

He's not against religion, except when it leads to Christ.

Im sure Jews and Noachides would find this statement not only wrong, but offensive
Again, wrong forum

He would also try to get Christians to squabbling among themselves over trivial aspects of the faith such that their objective of leading people to Christ got lost in the shuffle.

And as the great deniers of objective empirical evidence, Creationists are great proponents of this strategy

All of this would be accomplished very subtly and patiently, through gradual trends in culture to create an atmosphere in which it seems reasonable to exclude God from one's daily life, if not objectively, then by simple omission. You just don't think about God or pleasing him. All of this would be accomplished by the simple interjection of a thought here, an idea there. The Bible says the devil is a very powerful being, and has the power to work within the thought processes of the individual as well as those of the collective society.

AGAIN- WRONG forum

I think it is reasonable to think that "if the devil did exist," he would operate in this manner. Is this worth thinking about? Does any of it ring true as you look at the world today? I hope you will give it some serious consideration.

Not really. CS Lewis stated the same arguments, and did them better (although not well).

 

[TheInstant]

at the OP. Anyway...

Stephen J. Gould, noted paleontologist at Harvard says: "What has become of our ladder if there are three co-existing lineages of hominids (Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, and Homo habilis), none clearly derived from one another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth: none becam brainier or more erect as they approached the present day." Natural History, 85:30 (1976).

I'm really confused as to whether or not you understand what this quote is saying, considering the rest of your argument:

Doubt has also been cast upon the Java Man and Peking Man as to their linkage in the "human chain," instead placing them in the ape family.

The above are just a few of the statements and conclusions by authorities in the subject which indicate the uncertainty and back-peddling that exists even with the community of evolutionary scientists. I have seen many more. So, one may have to leave Lucy, Java Man, Peking Man, and Neandertal Man out of the pickup, leaving even more room for the others.

When someone claims that Lucy, etc. show evidence of human evolution, they are not saying that the fossils are necessarily direct human ancestors. The Gould quote is addressing the erroneous "ladder" concept of evolution. Note that the beginning of the quote says "What has become of our ladder", not "what has become of human evolution".

This page explains what is meant by the quote fairly well:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.7

 

[Asimov]

My apologies in advance to other readers for responding to this poster in the same tone he used toward me.

So repeating your nonsense ad nauseum makes it true? The only tone I use is one of complete ridicule for someone who has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Dal M.]

I will make a concession, they would all fit into the bed of a pickup truck.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. It's something that not many creationists are capable of doing, given that in their minds "inerrant Bible" tends to equal "inerrant me." However, you may want to ask yourself why you believed that all the hominid fossils so far unearthed would fit into a coffin. Is it something you read on a creationist website? Why would they tell you that, given that it's not true?

But in viewing all of those pieces, and I did look at every one of them, I saw only two or three which had nearly complete skeletons. So, my point remains: they construct a picture of what these "people?" looked like from just a skull, or just a digit, or just a femur, and a whole lot of speculation. They claim this is "proof" of evolution. Proof based on speculation? Dubious at best.

Who ever mentioned proof? As the old saying goes, proof is for mathematicians, philosophers, and distillers. Hominid skeletons are just another piece of evidence that supports the conclusion of evolution.

And your incredulity doesn't constitute a counterargument.

As for the Neanderthal, recent research involving DNA evidence indicates that he is fully human. {M. Lubenow, "Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An Evaluation," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12(1):87-97 (1998).}
It has been discovered that he suffered from the bone disease called rickets, which accounts for his often stooped appearance. In the absence of the disease, he stood fully upright and had features no different than modern man.

Since when does rickets result in strong, robust bones as the Neandertal has?

But don't take my word for it, consider a statement by the son of Louis Leakey:
"Lucy's skull (Australopithecus afarensis) was so incomplete that most of it was imagination, made of Plaster of Paris, thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."

Since "argument from authority" is a known fallacy, what makes you think that "argument from the creationist son of an authority" is any more valid? If you have any evidence that Australopithecus afarensis did not exist, then please present it.

In an article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Leakey also says "It is overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy champanzee..."

A chimpanzee with an obviously bipedal pelvis? Sounds like a pretty clear example of a transitional to me.

Pardon my using a couple of sources which you will probably argue are not secular and therefore biased, but the source does not lesson the validity or reliability of the quote. You will notice the other sources are biased the other direction, which does not lesson their validity either.

Why would quotes have any reliability here? Since you're trying to take on science, why not do as a scientist does and examine the evidence instead? It'll get you closer to the truth than quote-mines will.

 

[JGG]

As for the Neanderthal, recent research involving DNA evidence indicates that he is fully human. {M. Lubenow, "Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An Evaluation," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12(1):87-97 (1998).}

I can't find this journal anywhere except here on this creationist web site.

What does "peer-reviewed comment" mean? I also question the credibility of a scientific journal which is publishes creationist text books, and Creation magazine.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You are right, there are quite a lot of tiny pieces, a few pieces that are a little larger, and a number of skulls. I will make a concession, they would all fit into the bed of a pickup truck. But in viewing all of those pieces, and I did look at every one of them, I saw only two or three which had nearly complete skeletons. So, my point remains: they construct a picture of what these "people?" looked like from just a skull, or just a digit, or just a femur, and a whole lot of speculation. They claim this is "proof" of evolution. Proof based on speculation? Dubious at best.

As for the Neanderthal, recent research involving DNA evidence indicates that he is fully human. {M. Lubenow, "Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An Evaluation," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12(1):87-97 (1998).}

Not according to the researchers who did the analysis. Further, the most recent paper I can find support Neanderthals as a seperate species.
The quote below is from Hebsgard et al J. Mol. Evolution, 64, 50-60 January 2007.
Using Bayesian inference and the largest dataset to date, we find strong support for a monophyletic Neanderthal clade outside the diversity of contemporary humans, in agreement with the expectations of the Out-of-Africa replacement model of modern human origin.

It has been discovered that he suffered from the bone disease called rickets, which accounts for his often stooped appearance. In the absence of the disease, he stood fully upright and had features no different than modern man. {F. Ivanhoe, Nature, 227:577(1970)} {E. Trunkaus and W.W. Howells, Scientific American, 241(6):118(1979).}

Nonsense. I was born with rickets and I don't think I look the least bit like a Neanderthal. Maybe this has already been posted but below is from the paper Neanderthal Reconstructed by Sawer and Maley in
The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist, Volume 283B, issue 1 (March 2005), p. 23 - 31

The differences between Neanderthal and Human are far more than can be accounted for by "rickets".


F.B.

 

[USincognito]

...

I'm sorry to snip your response, which I do appreciate, but I work nights and didn't get a chance to reply in detail last night. I am on dial-up for the next few days so my detailed reply might not be until Tuesday evening. A few others might reply to your quotes, comments and assertions before then... I stand by their comments and reponses based on what I have seen previously.