Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[AV1611VET]

We also share ancestors with chimps, but we aren't chimps.
Both chimps and humans are primates.

We also share ancestors with lions, but we aren't lions.
Both humans and lions are mammals.

Likewise, we share ancestors with fish, but we aren't fish.
Both humans and fish are vertebrates though...

It's a big game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

That would depend on how you personally define "kind".

Incidentally, how do you define "atom"?

The online etymology dictionary defines it as coming from the word for "indivisible."

But since it has been divided, you would think the thing to do is change the word, wouldn't you?

I mean, if academia in the past was willing to change "kind" to "genus," why aren't they dealing their cards evenly across the table?

Or is it because "kind" is a Bible word, and academia's spiritual goal is to change or dilute every jot & tittle of the Bible?

 

[Kylie]

Incidentally, how do you define "atom"?

The online etymology dictionary defines it as coming from the word for "indivisible."

But since it has been divided, you would think the thing to do is change the word, wouldn't you?

I mean, if academia in the past was willing to change "kind" to "genus," why aren't they dealing their cards evenly across the table?

Or is it because "kind" is a Bible word, and academia's spiritual goal is to change or dilute every jot & tittle of the Bible?

Or maybe it's because the word Kind as used in the Bible never had any clear definition, and scientists didn't see the point in using a word that meant nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or maybe it's because the word Kind as used in the Bible never had any clear definition,

Would it matter if it did?

If they're willing to pluto "child in the womb" to "fetus" or "virgin" to "young woman," would it really matter?

 

[Kylie]

Would it matter if it did?

If they're willing to pluto "child in the womb" to "fetus" or "virgin" to "young woman," would it really matter?

So then why do you insist that "kind" and "genus" have identical meanings?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's a big game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?

Every problem/mystery that requires solving through investigation and research is.
I don't see that as a problem. In fact, it's the only way to ever solve anything.

The alternative would be to have the fully detailed picture right out the gates even before asking the questions and reality just doesn't work like that.

Every single problem / mystery that needs solving, is a game of connect-the-dots.
The initial dots are the "clues" you have, the data at your disposal.
You connect them and the picture that surfaces provides you with ideas on where to look for other clues / data. You can then see if they match the picture. If not, you start over and this time include the new "dots" as well.

This is the only way to solve problems.

 

[AV1611VET]

So then why do you insist that "kind" and "genus" have identical meanings?

What am I supposed to say when someone asks me what a Biblical kind is?

Lie and say, "I don't have any idea," just for their satisfaction?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see that as a problem. In fact, it's the only way to ever solve anything.

Did I ever present it as a problem?

I've always presented it as a solution to evolution's problem, haven't I?

It looks like you are agreeing with me that evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[46AND2]

...or "virgin" to "young woman," ...

Actually, it was the Greek Septuagint which changed "young woman" to "virgin" when translating from the Hebrew.

Not that I think you'd believe me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, it was the Greek Septuagint which changed "young woman" to "virgin" when translating from the Hebrew.

Not that I think you'd believe me.

Setting my belief of that aside, academia crawls all over that like ants on an ice cream cone, doesn't it?

Kids can graduate college nowadays not knowing how to address, stamp, and mail a letter; but they can tell you what words are mistranslated in the KJB, can't they?

They can't tell you what nations come from Noah's sons; but they can tell you why WHITE CHRISTMAS is racist, can't they?

They can't tell you where the comma belongs in GOD REST YE MERRY GENTLEMEN; but they can tell you Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictions, can't they?

 

[46AND2]

Setting my belief of that aside, academia crawls all over that like ants on an ice cream cone, doesn't it?

Kids can graduate college nowadays not knowing how to address, stamp, and mail a letter; but they can tell you what words are mistranslated in the KJB, can't they?

funny that...I just bought my first page of stamps in YEARS in order to send out a transcript request form to a college who apparently still hasn't joined us in the 21st century to offer an online request. I had NO IDEA what "Forever" stamps were. I'm like, dude, just give me the ones with the 30 cents printed on them.

They can't tell you what nations come from Noah's sons; but they can tell you why WHITE CHRISTMAS is racist, can't they?

White Christmas is racist...haven't heard that one. Pretty silly.

They can't tell you where the comma belongs in GOD REST YE MERRY GENTLEMEN; but they can tell you Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictions, can't they?

But anyway, what does any of this millennials stuff have to do with Biblical academia? Those scholars are mostly in their mid 40s at the youngest.

 

[AV1611VET]

But anyway, what does any of this millennials stuff have to do with Biblical academia?

Whenever anyone changes a word in the Bible, I assume it is because they have been to college and taught that.

Either that, or they have been to college and taught to think critically, and they choose to apply that critical thinking to the Bible.

So when you mentioned [Satan's] Septuagint, I assumed you picked that lie up somewhere in the halls of academia.

Satan doesn't want you guys to think your Creator was born of a virgin, so he had God's "virgin" rewritten as "young woman," and disseminates this information throughout the halls of academia and via such writings as Strong's Concordance and whatnot.

That lie has now infiltrated our churches via what is known as "psychoheresy" and voila!

We know have Mary being a "young woman," care of academia and ecclesia.

 

[inquiring mind]

Every problem/mystery that requires solving through investigation and research is.
I don't see that as a problem. In fact, it's the only way to ever solve anything.

The alternative would be to have the fully detailed picture right out the gates even before asking the questions and reality just doesn't work like that.

Every single problem / mystery that needs solving, is a game of connect-the-dots.
The initial dots are the "clues" you have, the data at your disposal.
You connect them and the picture that surfaces provides you with ideas on where to look for other clues / data. You can then see if they match the picture. If not, you start over and this time include the new "dots" as well.

This is the only way to solve problems.

Agree, connecting the dots can lead to a solution, but filling in between two points (dots) with sufficient, verifiable evidence that draws an irrefutable result is one thing, and accepting that they’re connected with significantly less evidence that uses speculative stretches in the gaps is another.

Evolutionists and academia don’t seem to want to present finds and explain any connection as a possibility that they hope to verify, but rather with the first hint of a supposed tie they put them on a chart and present them as the logical flow to a captive audience.

 

[46AND2]

Whenever anyone changes a word in the Bible, I assume it is because they have been to college and taught that.

Either that, or they have been to college and taught to think critically, and they choose to apply that critical thinking to the Bible.

So when you mentioned [Satan's] Septuagint, I assumed you picked that lie up somewhere in the halls of academia.

Satan doesn't want you guys to think your Creator was born of a virgin, so he had God's "virgin" rewritten as "young woman," and disseminates this information throughout the halls of academia and via such writings as Strong's Concordance and whatnot.

That lie has now infiltrated our churches via what is known as "psychoheresy" and voila!

We know have Mary being a "young woman," care of academia and ecclesia.

As you know, further discussion of this will lead nowhere, as we have vastly differing opinions about what constitutes the original text of the Bible. Suffice it to say....i find it much more important to determine what was meant by the Hebrew text than what was meant by the KJV.

Concerning the Septuagint, however, I assume you disagree, then, with the theory that the writers of the gospels relied heavily on that translation of the Old Testament?

 

[AV1611VET]

Concerning the Septuagint, however, I assume you disagree, then, with the theory that the writers of the gospels relied heavily on that translation of the Old Testament?

You just told me the Septuagint used the term "young woman" over "virgin;" and then you ask me if they "relied heavily on the Septuagint"?

Is this a trick question?

I'll say NO, they did not.

Academia relies on it, but I think it's kinda obvious that the KJ translators did not.

 

[Jimmy D]

Agree, connecting the dots can lead to a solution, but filling in between two points (dots) with sufficient, verifiable evidence that draws an irrefutable result is one thing, and accepting that they’re connected with significantly less evidence that uses speculative stretches in the gaps is another.

Evolutionists and academia don’t seem to want to present finds and explain any connection as a possibility that they hope to verify, but rather with the first hint of a supposed tie they put them on a chart and present them as the logical flow to a captive audience.

Not the good old creation scientists though... they're sticklers for accuracy the scientific method.

What's academia ever done for us?!?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Did I ever present it as a problem?

I've always presented it as a solution to evolution's problem, haven't I?

It looks like you are agreeing with me that evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

Not just evolution. Everything that is subject to / requires research and investigation.
To single out evolution as being like that, is weird.

Connecting the dots, is the only way forward when solving a problem starting with just a few clues. This is how you determine what caused a fire, who murdered the victim, how a virus infects other people, how volcano's work,....

Everything.

You always seem to say this in some derogatory fashion, as if it is a problem, and I don't understand why.

Do you agree that every question that requires research/investigation to be answered, is like that? And not just evolution?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Agree, connecting the dots can lead to a solution

Stronger then that imo: The dots are your only hope of ever reaching a solution.

but filling in between two points (dots) with sufficient, verifiable evidence that draws an irrefutable result is one thing, and accepting that they’re connected with significantly less evidence that uses speculative stretches in the gaps is another.

When you connect two dots, you are effectively predicting other dots.
While those actual dots can turn out to be a few mm left or right of your line, they can't be at the other side of the page without seriously altering your picture.

So when you draw a line of one dot of fish in pre-devonian rock to another dot of tetrapod life in late devonian rock, then around the middle of that line, you'ld expect dots of fish/tetrapod hybrids. And when you look for such in the real world, you actually find them. In rock of the middle devonian.

See?

That's how that works.

Evolutionists and academia don’t seem to want to present finds

I think the problem is more that you are unwilling to look at their findings.
You have been presented with this fish/tetrapod (tiktaalik) example i-dunno-how-many-times and have been asked to explain how it is possible that paleontologists are able to make such accurate predictions (locality, rock type and anatomical feature set, of previously unknown species) based on an idea that is apparantly as false as it gets (according to creationists).

Of all the places in the world where you can go and dig...
Of all the rock types in the world...
Of all the potentially possible fossils you could find....

They end up finding EXACTLY the type of fossil they said they would, in EXACTLY the right location, in EXACTLY the right type of rock dated to pretty much EXACTLY the expected timeframe.

And remember that this is just ONE example. A LOT of fossils are uncovered by prediction. How do you think do paleontologists decide where to go dig looking for what? Do you think they get grands to just go dig in some random spot while not actually looking for anything in particular?

How can you say that "evolutionists" aren't presenting any such finds, when you have been given this example so many times already?

and explain any connection as a possibility that they hope to verify

ps: you don't actually need any fossils to establish relations between species. Just some extant DNA samples is more then enough.
In fact, genetics establish such relations a lot more solidly then any fossil ever could.

, but rather with the first hint of a supposed tie they put them on a chart and present them as the logical flow to a captive audience.

"the first hint" ha?
Nevermind the family trees that are based on completely sequences genomes of thousand and thousands of species, where every single gene has been catalogued and compared to hell and back.


See, if you ignore the actual science and only listen to creationist propaganda, that's the kind of evidence and findings that you are going to miss out on.




You may now begin your conspiratory argument.

 

[xianghua]

I am constantly amazed that you are unable to grasp basic points.

Lions and tigers both evolved from a common ancestor. As lions and tigers continue to evolve, they become more and more different.

A long time ago, shortly after lions and tigers diverged from their common ancestor, they would have been able to still interbreed, because their differences were quite small.

• Example: The finches on the Galapagos islands which are able to interbreed quite easily.

Now, more time has passed since lions and tigers diverged from their common ancestor. They are still similar enough to interbreed, but there are more differences now, and that makes it harder for them interbreed successfully.

• Example: Ligers, the males are completely sterile even though the females are fertile.

And in the future, lions and tigers will keep getting more and more different. Perhaps one day they may be able to produce offspring, but they will ALL be sterile offspring, both males and females.

• Example: mules and hinnies, which are both the result of breeding between horses and donkeys. They are almost invariably sterile in both sexes.

After that, lions and tigers will continue to diverge until eventually they won't be able to interbreed at all. They won't be able to produce any offspring at all.

• Example: Dogs and cats, which can't interbreed at all.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you can't understand this, you really have no business trying to discuss evolution.

again: its just a speciation. why to call it evolution? the design model can also exlain speciation, since its basically still the same creature and belong to the same family.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you agree that every question that requires research/investigation to be answered, is like that? And not just evolution?

Have I not made it plain that I'm one of the biggest dot connectors around?

What's this, if not a dot connector?

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Want a list that contains some of my more spectacular connections?

Setting the Record Straight