Evolution's Wrong Biblically!

[lucaspa]

Is skeptictimes.com a joke that some evilutionists made like landover baptist? Or is that someone's real beliefs?

It's an undercover atheist plot to make Christianity look foolish.

 

[lucaspa]

There is no proof for evolution.

http://www.christianforums.com/t155626
http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

Also, go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
Enter "evolution" as your search term. Then start reading.

But show me the skeleton of a monkey that just turned into a homosapian, and give me the skeleton for each of the phase for the whole transformation.

Single individuals don't change into members of another species. That's not evolution.

In evolution, populations change from generation to generation. But you, as an individual, are a member of your species from the day you are born until the day you die.

Now, I can trace individual skeletons back from us (Homo sapiens) to Homo erectus to Homo habilis to Australopithecus afarensis. Evolution proved by your standards. Here they are. Look up the articles and pictures of skeletons yourself.

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis
B Asfaw, T White, O Lovejoy, B Latimer, S Simpson, G Suwa, Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284: 622-629, 1999. All individuals are intermediate between A. afarensis and H. habilis.

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Bouri http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0611_030611_earliesthuman.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_bones-background.shtml
actual paper: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/nature01669_r.html
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc

 

[lucaspa]

"Evolution's Wrong Biblically!"

I would say rather, "The Bible's Wrong Scientifically!"

I would say: "The literalist interpretation of the Bible is wrong, not the Bible. The interpretation doesn't match God's other book."

 

[USincognito]

To be fair slayer, the servers did go down for a bit. I'm at work and needed to so some stuff, so I've been afk myself. Now that I'm back I'd like to point out - again - how he's relying on tricks that might work in a verbal debate, but fail miserably in a written one.

The Misdirection and The Hand Wave

You'll note that he used both like a magician doing a card trick.

On page 16 OneWhoRemains posted the following. (bold mine)

There is no proof for evolution. Theres rocks that make people think it happened, we kind of look like monkeys, and turtles are everywhere. But show me the skeleton of a monkey that just turned into a homosapian, and give me the skeleton for each of the phase for the whole transformation. Ohps, they dont have any, as the oldest, I just bunked that theory. It has been bunked, Watermelon anyone?

Where I have bolded you see he's (in a clumsy creationist way) asking for a series of transitional fossils between ape and human. On page 17, I posted the skull series which is exactly what he was asking for. A "whole transformation" from ape to human. I then asked him if he could point in the series where he would devide between ape and human.

Thus far OneWhoRemains hasn't replied, but tkster pipes up with a hand waving dismissal (paraphrase) "those fossils don't mean anything" which then redirects the conversation away from the actual point of contention - did I give OneWhoRemains the ape to human fossil series he was asking for down the rabbit hole of whether fossils are valid evidence. I maintain I did.

Unanswered questions so far:
- OneWhoRemains hasn't made a determination on where the line between ape and human lies in the series.
- tkster hasn't made a determination on where the line between ape and human lies in the series.
- tkster hasn't explained why fossils are invalid for further investigation of biology while corpses are useful for forensics.
- tkster hasn't explained why fossils are invalid for forming phylogenic trees.
- tkster hasn't explained why the fossils that supposedly don't explain anything exist when they shouldn't exist if evolution is invalid.

I wonder how long the list will get?

 

[USincognito]

It's an undercover atheist plot to make Christianity look foolish.

You really think so? I suppose I should be more skeptical of this oleoskeptic, but thus far his story is remaining fairly consistent. If he's a "long line fisherman" he's putting on one heck of a show.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

[Completely irrelevant tangent]

Not thinking of anyone here, but for some reason this thought popped into my mind.

Is it the case that the ease of obtaining a domain name and putting a site up on the internet too easily allows any nutcase with any loopy idea to present it in a way that manages to make him fool himself that it's a serious contender and intellectually coherent and valid?

Just a thought on how the internet might be affecting society. As I say, I can't imagine why I'm thinking about this now.

[/Completely irrelevant tangent]

 

[Blessed-one]

*MOD HAT ON*

I applaud and thank every single poster who manages to not let emotions get the best of him.

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"

1) You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"

2) You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum.

If you're only interested in coming into the thread and accusing people of being ignorant, stupid...

OR

ignoring whatever 'evidence' the opposite side presents with a fair amount of contempt, Please just leave this thread.

Put it more bluntly, if you can't keep a civil conversation, please stay out of the discussion.

Consider this an unofficial warning to all here.

Thanks for your cooperation.

*MOD HAT OFF*

 

[USincognito]

Hi tkster.

I see you posted to E&C at 6:30am this morning my time. It's now after 9:15am my time and you haven't repsonded to my replies in this thread. Did you miss them?

 

[USincognito]

Hi tkster. Any chance of you getting back to my comments? Or have you turned tail and run?

 

[United]

Look Chief, I'm going to offer you the same question I have yet to have answered by creationists.

Here are 14 skulls. The first is a chimpanzee. The last is a human. Tell me where in this series you would devide between ape and human and why.

Hi USincognito
If you got this from the net, could you give me link. If not, could you provide the species names for each of the skulls. Thanks

No, that is a typical evo tactic. You try to get Creationists to "debate" your fossil evidence. The problem is that any skeptic would point out FOSSILS CAN'T BE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION AT ALL! You try to get someone to argue with a flaw in your argument. Congrats, but unlike these other foolish Creationists I am not that ignorant to buy into that.

By the Skeptic's Creed, fossils cannot be evidence for anything except the organism died and a portion of the bones were preserved. That is it. That is skepticism, skepticism is what science is based on.

Hi TK,
I admit that I haven't read all of this thread, but quotes like the above don't do creationism any favours. It's good to keep an open mind when weighing the evidence, but your auguments suggest that you haven't even investigated the evidence. Regardless of whether you believe creation or evolution, the evidence should be studied.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Our relation to our fellow apes seems to be the one big point that gives Creationists so much trouble - could it be that it isn't God's glory you're trying to defend, but merely your own vanity?
Much like the church people who persecuted astronomers for claiming that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, Creationists reject evolution for diminishing the utmost importance of our own species. Does it nag you so much to be just one small factor within the huge framework of the universe. Doesn't it suffice to know that we're part of this collossal miracle of existence? And that God cares IN SPITE OF our insignificance to the Big Picture?

The earth is just one small speck of dirt on the outer fringes of a single galaxy, and we're nothing more than highly evolved, hairless apes. Get used to it.
God isn't affected by this - just your own vanity.

 

[USincognito]

Hi USincognito
If you got this from the net, could you give me link. If not, could you provide the species names for each of the skulls. Thanks

The original article with explaining the series is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3
each skull is identified in the article.

 

[ONE WHO REMAINS]

God said he created man in his image, and christ was in his image too. So if we were single cells than Christ should have been one too.

 

[USincognito]

God said he created man in his image, and christ was in his image too. So if we were single cells than Christ should have been one too.

Unless of course God created man via evolution, in which case God could still be an anthopoidal biped. Next objection...

 

[Sopharos]

God said he created man in his image, and christ was in his image too.

"Physical" or "Spiritual" image?

So if we were single cells than Christ should have been one too.

What the???!!!

We're not single cells.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God said he created man in his image, and christ was in his image too. So if we were single cells than Christ should have been one too.

Does the phrase "immaculate conception" mean anything to you, or was Christ planted in Mary's womb fully formed? (YEEEEOUCH!)

 

[ONE WHO REMAINS]

Evolution did not take place. Mind you we do evolve or better yet we adapt. We have adaptations, but no evolutions.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Evolution did not take place. Mind you we do evolve or better yet we adapt. We have adaptations, but no evolutions.

Contradict yourself much? What's an adaption? What adapts? How? Does it still involve changes in allele frequency?

 

[the_gloaming]

Evolution did not take place. Mind you we do evolve or better yet we adapt. We have adaptations, but no evolutions.

which one of these don't you believe occurs (or both of course) ?

1. random mutation
2. natural selection

what do you believe is the difference between adaptation and evolution ?

 

[Dexx]

Can those theistic evolutionists amoung you comment on this article?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-191.htm
It talks about how death entered the world through Adam. And that Christ removed the curse of death. It asks how this can be reconciled with evolution - which requires eons of death and suffering before man even appears.