GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[TheReasoner]

So your point is that it is ok to lie to people if it serves your agenda? I am looking for the truth, not fabricated misrepresentations of the evidence.

No, lying is never okay. But you do not know a lie has been made. And you make bold statements as if you had at least one phd on a closely related subject, yet make so many basic mistakes it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

Lying is not okay. I never said it was. Bearing false witness is not okay either though, and as you do not possess sufficient knowledge to say for certain that this is a fake that is what you are doing. You should not make such bold statements, but you should make statements with much more humility, such as "To me this seems like...", not "This IS ..." or "It is OBVIOUS that ..." because it is not obvious, and it is not clear.

So:
You do not know that a lie has been made, you suspect. To claim you know when you do not is bearing false witness.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What is the agenda? We teach the Bible and we teach Bible truth.

And there's your agenda -- since when have you known what "Bible truth" is?

What, besides convenience, dictates "Bible truth"?

As far as critical thinking, again you forget that we are to have the mind of Christ. It maybe hard to think of a Church that is all of one mind and one accord.

Perhaps if I ever saw it actually happen, it would be easier to think of.

But since such a thing doesn't exist except in vain fantasies, it's moot.

This is something that Science is just beginning to look into.

Actually, psychologists and sociologists have studied this kind of "mob mentality" for some time now.

You know, Johnny, for someone who claims to have studied science for years, your lack of knowledge on that is... suspicious, to say the least.

Although we do see an example in "To Kill a Mocking Bird". So the people that yell "Crucify Him" were perhaps indoctrinated into an agenda also. At least they were united in purpose and intent.

Which is more than I can say for Christians today -- funny how the example of you giving of "The Mind of Christ" comes from the people who had him killed.

As you know you can be for God or against God. Everyone has to make a choice. I just do not understand why anyone would be against God. It just does not seem like a very smart thing to do.

Because there are bigger and more important things than what you choose to call "God" -- the genuine article comes to mind.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm dispelling the myths you seem to adhere to. Lucy was bipedal, despite what you may have been told. Your arguments up till now were aimed at demonstrating she was "just an ape".


Indeed, and neither am I. People who actually are experts, however, say that the fourth metatarsal is that of a biped, not a quadruped (as per your claim in #629).

I don't believe she gave up tree life to walk around all the time, and evidence points to her being a knuckle walker too. So she MAY have been capable of walking but probably not. (only capable of walking if the 40 pieces of her left pelvis was assembled correctly- which is biased and doubtful). I want to see more fossils of Lucy other than the pelvis johanson found, just one specimen is hardly proof of a full time walker. But Even if she could walk around she was capable of climbing and knuckle walking ...So if she walked around it would have been a third of the time or less. Secondly, The point is that many chimps have similar knee characteristics so what does it make Lucy if she has them? Plus Several non-archosaurian lizard species move bipedally when running, usually to escape from threats. So what does it make lucy if she could stand up? I mean even birds hop on two legs. The matching of bipedalism and humans is a faulty argument. Even if it were true and that is a long shot.

thirdly, as far as the foot bone being non human, there is no evidence that the bone matches any known ape or monkey like creature this would be the first. So how do you know for a fact it isn't actually human? Even if it is a lucy bone, you couldn't prove it with just one, you would need two at least. Because someone could always say it's human. It came from the same geologic layer as the layer containing some human footprints as well. (but that is debatable Re:Laetoli Footprints). The main point being that no full specimen of lucy or lucy's family has ever been fitted with a metatarsal like the one in question. No feet to compare it to, no other specimen. The only reason why they believe it was lucy's is because humans hadn't evolved yet. Couldn't there be another problem? Like that macroevolution is faulty?

look for yourself, lucy's foot is just another human foot.

see any similiarities?

Lucy's Foot

Human Foot

 

[Jazer]

And there's your agenda -- since when have you known what "Bible truth" is?

All your telling me is that you do not know the truth. This is an absolute not a relative. Truth existed before there was ever a universe. Truth will continue to exist long after the universe is gone.

But since such a thing doesn't exist except in vain fantasies, it's moot.

In this case we are talking about what Paul wrote in the Bible. So I guess you will have to take it up with him. Of course this maybe a problem for you because if you admit that there is Mind of Christ, then you also have to admit that some people have carnal reprobate minds.

You know, Johnny, for someone who claims to have studied science for years, your lack of knowledge on that is... suspicious, to say the least.

Then why bother to have a conversation with me if you think I have nothing to contribute to the conversation? Sense I know nothing then this is all just a waste of your time. Perhaps you can find something more productive to do somewhere.

 

[Jazer]

Different apes are different? Not really controversial.

They are not different apes, they are all Lucy. Interesting that they have so many different ways to try and sell their story.

 

[Nathan Poe]

All your telling me is that you do not know the truth. This is an absolute not a relative. Truth existed before there was ever a universe. Truth will continue to exist long after the universe is gone.

And perhaps someday you'll know what it is -- preferably before you continue to sell it.

In this case we are talking about what Paul wrote in the Bible. So I guess you will have to take it up with him.

Well, Paul was mostly doing some fast talking to keep the various early Christian churches on the same wavelength -- his own.

Of course this maybe a problem for you because if you admit that there is Mind of Christ, then you also have to admit that some people have carnal reprobate minds.

Given that Paul wasn't the Christ, and didn't have his mind, I don't need to acknowledge his moral superiority any more than I'd have to acknowledge yours.

Then why bother to have a conversation with me if you think I have nothing to contribute to the conversation? Sense I know nothing then this is all just a waste of your time. Perhaps you can find something more productive to do somewhere.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing -- if I don't point out your blather as blather, some other poor soul may come along and mistake it for something worthwhile.

Why then are you so anxious to have me shuffle off? Could it be that you don't like your deliberate errors brought into the light?

John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

 

[Jazer]

preferably before you continue to sell it.

I do not sell truth. Never made a penny off of the Bible. We give all we can to missions. To help as many people as we can. I use to wonder about the rich man that Jesus told to sell all he had and give to the poor. Then one day in the Philippines I saw what it means to have compassion on the poor, to see that their need is much greater then ours. Even my brother, I have seen him spend his vacation to go on medical missions. To try and bring a little bit of health care to remote areas were people can not afford it. He would have liked to be a full time missionary at one time, but he has four kids and education is not cheap.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why bother to have a conversation with me if you think I have nothing to contribute to the conversation? Sense I know nothing then this is all just a waste of your time. Perhaps you can find something more productive to do somewhere.

From my Bible dictionary:

SANBALLAT

When Nehemiah came from Shushan to Jerusalem, Ne 2:10,19, B. C. 454, and began to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, Sanaballat, Tobiah, and Geshem taunted him, and sent to inquire on what authority he undertook this enterprise, and whether it were not a revolt against the king. Nehemiah nevereless proceeded with vigor in his undertaking, and completed the walls of the city, Ne 2:10; 4:6.

 

[Jpark]

So, from the dinosaurs point of view, they lived for years. From X's point of view, they lived for seconds or minutes. Who, then, is 'X', and how do we know he/she/it/they observed dinosaurs to live and die in a matter of seconds?

No, from the dinosaurs pov, they lived for seconds or minutes. That's what I meant.

It will not occur for several billion years, and by that point the human race will likely be long extinct. Our species may well survive in the guise of an ancestral taxon, but it's unlikely humanity will have any descendants that resemble modern humans. Besides, what do you mean by "they'll experience the orbit in real time"? What other way is there?

What would we experience if the earth started rapidly spinning? Would our perception of time change in anyway? What if it stopped or slowed down rapidly?

The Bible may well say that they rotted "while still standing on their feet", but science doesn't corroborate that event.

Ok.

It doesn't have an effect on entropy. Like a piston being drawn out, it would only increase entropy, if anything.

No I meant 'is the universe expanding an example of entropy?'

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't believe she gave up tree life to walk around all the time,

Her ancestors did that. She bears the hallmarks of a somewhat arboreal life, but other hominid species, such as A. africanus, show these hallmarks more strongly. That is, A. africanus was more arboreal than A. aferensis.

and evidence points to her being a knuckle walker too.

Err... no, it doesn't. I've already cited many papers and articles showing that A. afarensis was bipedal, and you already agreed to this.

So she MAY have been capable of walking but probably not.

Err... except numerous studies and analyses have shown that A. afarensis was bipedal for at least the large majority of its locomotion, if not the entireity.

(only capable of walking if the 40 pieces of her left pelvis was assembled correctly- which is biased and doubtful).

Err... except I've cited numerous other examples of fossilised members of A. afarensis which have an intact pelvis, so we can directly gauge the accuracy of the reconstruction. And, lo and behold, it's accurate.

I want to see more fossils of Lucy other than the pelvis johanson found, just one specimen is hardly proof of a full time walker.

Err... you know 'Lucy' refers to a single individual, right? There's no more fossils of her, because there's only one Lucy.

But Even if she could walk around she was capable of climbing and knuckle walking ...So if she walked around it would have been a third of the time or less.

No. As I've repeatedly stated, and repeatedly substantiated, A. afarensis' skeletal structure (foot, pelvis, knees, torso, etc) all point to a primarily bipedal locomotion. Lucy undoubtedly could climb trees, as modern humans can, but she, like us, was primarily bipedal.

Secondly, The point is that many chimps have similar knee characteristics so what does it make Lucy if she has them?

Can you cite a source for this information? How similar is similar?

Plus Several non-archosaurian lizard species move bipedally when running, usually to escape from threats. So what does it make lucy if she could stand up? I mean even birds hop on two legs. The matching of bipedalism and humans is a faulty argument. Even if it were true and that is a long shot.

Err... you realise that it's your argument, not ours, right? You're the one trying to prove that she was quadrepedal and therefore a chimpanzee, remember? We have found many hominid species, some quadrepedal, some bipedal. A. afarensis happened to be bipedal. You are the one insisting that she's not bipedal, while simultaneously claiming that she's an ape, a chimpanzee, and a human. You don't seem all that sure of what you think she is.

thirdly, as far as the foot bone being non human, there is no evidence that the bone matches any known ape or monkey like creature this would be the first. So how do you know for a fact it isn't actually human?

Because we can compare the metatarsal with the human analogue, and directly observe that, in fact, the foot of A. afarensis is not the foot of H. sapiens. People who specialise in skeletons and bones aren't iditios, gradyll. You'd be blown away by what they can deduce from bones - age, gender, diet, gait, locomotion, and, yes, species.

Even if it is a lucy bone, you couldn't prove it with just one, you would need two at least. Because someone could always say it's human.

Err... no. We can determine which species a fossil is from by more than just direct comparison (ironically, the method you propose here is in direct contradiction to one you propose later on in your post, namely that the fossils are that of a human foot).

It came from the same geologic layer as the layer containing some human footprints as well. (but that is debatable Re:Laetoli Footprints). The main point being that no full specimen of lucy or lucy's family has ever been fitted with a metatarsal like the one in question. No feet to compare it to, no other specimen. The only reason why they believe it was lucy's is because humans hadn't evolved yet. Couldn't there be another problem? Like that macroevolution is faulty?

No, and frankly your reaching. As I said before, and as my citations explicitly stated before, and in yet more sources like here and here - the bones are of A. afarensis. And even if all the evidence was wrong and the bones weren't of A. afarensis, you're let with the very conspicous problem of another species of bipedal hominid that lived exactly the same time as A. afarensis, yet further bolstering the argument that the modern human species is descended from ancestral species that lived orders of hundreds of thousands of years ago.

look for yourself, lucy's foot is just another human foot.

see any similiarities?

Lucy's Foot

Human Foot

No, I don't. I see distinct markers that distinguish the human metatarsal from that of A. afarensis. if nothing else, the bone of the adult A. afarensis is far smaller than that of the adult H. sapiens.

 

[createdtoworship]

Her ancestors did that. She bears the hallmarks of a somewhat arboreal life, but other hominid species, such as A. africanus, show these hallmarks more strongly. That is, A. africanus was more arboreal than A. aferensis.


Err... no, it doesn't. I've already cited many papers and articles showing that A. afarensis was bipedal, and you already agreed to this.


Err... except numerous studies and analyses have shown that A. afarensis was bipedal for at least the large majority of its locomotion, if not the entireity.

I think you are taking all the assumptions that scientists have made regarding lucy and are putting them together in a huge large assumption namely that she walked all the time. See, every time we see human footprints in an older layer than previously expected, we label it afarensis (lucy). Don't you see the bias here? In the case of the 4th metatarsal discovery in ethiopia we see the same.

Err... except I've cited numerous other examples of fossilised members of A. afarensis which have an intact pelvis, so we can directly gauge the accuracy of the reconstruction. And, lo and behold, it's accurate.

I am sorry I scrolled back and didn't see any examples, could you post again of a pelvis that resembles biped (other than lucy)

Err... you know 'Lucy' refers to a single individual, right? There's no more fossils of her, because there's only one Lucy.

I use lucy as a signature of all of A. afarensis species

No. As I've repeatedly stated, and repeatedly substantiated, A. afarensis' skeletal structure (foot, pelvis, knees, torso, etc) all point to a primarily bipedal locomotion. Lucy undoubtedly could climb trees, as modern humans can, but she, like us, was primarily bipedal.

you quote inaccessible documents that no one can read accept a subscribers

Can you cite a source for this information? How similar is similar?

orangutans and spider monkeys are said to have the highest carrying angle at the knee joint (9 degrees like a human). Both are adept tree climbers.

Err... you realise that it's your argument, not ours, right? You're the one trying to prove that she was quadrepedal and therefore a chimpanzee, remember? We have found many hominid species, some quadrepedal, some bipedal. A. afarensis happened to be bipedal. You are the one insisting that she's not bipedal, while simultaneously claiming that she's an ape, a chimpanzee, and a human. You don't seem all that sure of what you think she is.

an ape like creature with biped possibly and tree climbing abilities primarily. (if her pelvis was assembled correctly)

Because we can compare the metatarsal with the human analogue, and directly observe that, in fact, the foot of A. afarensis is not the foot of H. sapiens. People who specialise in skeletons and bones aren't iditios, gradyll. You'd be blown away by what they can deduce from bones - age, gender, diet, gait, locomotion, and, yes, species.

from what I gather the only evidence for being afarensis species is because humans could not be there according to their biased date settings.
sorry if I don't take your word for it (or theirs)

No, I don't. I see distinct markers that distinguish the human metatarsal from that of A. afarensis. if nothing else, the bone of the adult A. afarensis is far smaller than that of the adult H. sapiens.

are you talking about the 4th metatarsal found? Surely not, because they are identical in the picture. Picture a childs foot in the picture which would be the same size. They would be exact.

even if all the evidence was wrong and the bones weren't of A. afarensis, you're let with the very conspicous problem of another species of bipedal hominid that lived exactly the same time as A. afarensis, yet further bolstering the argument that the modern human species is descended from ancestral species that lived orders of hundreds of thousands of years ago.

another species of bipedal hominids that lived exactly the same time as A. afarensis was humans. It came from the same geologic layer as the layer containing some human footprints as well. (but that is debatable Re: the Laetoli Footprints)

 

[Jazer]

if I don't point out your blather as blather, some other poor soul may come along and mistake it for something worthwhile.

That is why GAP does NOT get involved in a discussion about apes and men. Because YAWN ... WHO CARES? We pretty much only get ourselves involved with the last 14,000 years and before that Science is on their own. Or they could perhaps find an OEC Creationist and maybe get some action out of them. The real blather is the evolutionists trying to twist and warp the evidence to suit their needs. You get yourself all worked up into a lather because we point out the obsurditity of their attempt to come up with an explaination for their so called evidence. Variation may not be the result of evolution. But go ahead and knock yourself out in a attempt to get the evidence to support your theory. In the end of all your effort you will realize it does not fit and you wasted your time trying to get it to fit.

 

[mzungu]

......but you should make statements with much more humility,......

Humility is a word very few Americans understand. Since most if not all creationists have discarded humility in order to homogenise their religious beliefs with politics, they are in essence unable to understand the meaning of humility!

I side with the world's Christians, and other faiths which humble themselves in the humility that keeps at bay vanity, pride, hate, and ignorance.

 

[mzungu]

That is why GAP does NOT get involved in a discussion about apes and men. Because YAWN ... WHO CARES? We pretty much only get ourselves involved with the last 14,000 years and before that Science is on their own. Or they could perhaps find an OEC Creationist and maybe get some action out of them. The real blather is the evolutionists trying to twist and warp the evidence to suit their needs. You get yourself all worked up into a lather because we point out the obsurditity of their attempt to come up with an explaination for their so called evidence. Variation may not be the result of evolution. But go ahead and knock yourself out in a attempt to get the evidence to support your theory. In the end of all your effort you will realize it does not fit and you wasted your time trying to get it to fit.

Yes DAD!

 

[USincognito]

Posted by you earlier today...

They are not different apes, they are all Lucy. Interesting that they have so many different ways to try and sell their story.

Posted by me last night...

Half of those images don't even show Au. afarensis, much less Lucy in particular. Those that do show Au. afarensis appear to be random image search results.

Posted by you earlier today...

So your point is that it is ok to lie to people if it serves your agenda? I am looking for the truth, not fabricated misrepresentations of the evidence.

So you are looking for "the truth, not fabricated misrepresentations of the evidence", yet you posted a bunch of linked images - half of which aren't Lucy or even Au. afarensis - you were corrected on that, and yet today you claim "they are all Lucy".

Where I come from "prevaricating" is the nicest way to describe what you're doing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think you are taking all the assumptions that scientists have made regarding lucy and are putting them together in a huge large assumption namely that she walked all the time. See, every time we see human footprints in an older layer than previously expected, we label it afarensis (lucy). Don't you see the bias here? In the case of the 4th metatarsal discovery in ethiopia we see the same.

It is your assertion that scientists have no basis for labelling a fossil A. afarensis. This assertion is false. What reason do you have to doubt the experts, except your own presuppositions? What evidence do you have to support your assertion that the label of A. afarensis is incorrect?

I am sorry I scrolled back and didn't see any examples, could you post again of a pelvis that resembles biped (other than lucy)

Most of my citations are on post #644. Here is another source, detailing a skeleton with both skull and feet and bones between.

I use lucy as a signature of all of A. afarensis species

Why not use Lucy to refer to the specific fossil AL 288-1, and A. afarensis to refer to the species? Otherwise, you're authoring unnecessary confusion.

you quote inaccessible documents that no one can read accept a subscribers

The abstracts (summaries of the findings and conclusions) are readily available for all to read. There's not a whole lot more I can do, except pay for you to get a subscription. The evidence is detailed in those papers, and the abstract summaries their conclusions. And not to mention the other citations that don't require a subscription.

orangutans and spider monkeys are said to have the highest carrying angle at the knee joint (9 degrees like a human). Both are adept tree climbers.

Indeed. So?

an ape like creature with biped possibly and tree climbing abilities primarily. (if her pelvis was assembled correctly)

Why are you so fixated on Lucy? We have many other fossils of A. afarensis, you know.

from what I gather the only evidence for being afarensis species is because humans could not be there according to their biased date settings.

Then your appraisal of the evidence is flawed.

sorry if I don't take your word for it (or theirs)

Then why on Earth ask for evidence, if you're going to dismiss it out of hand when it doesn't conform to your presuppositions?

are you talking about the 4th metatarsal found? Surely not, because they are identical in the picture. Picture a childs foot in the picture which would be the same size. They would be exact.

No, they wouldn't. They're roughly the same, but only because they're both bones of the fourth metatarsal. In the details, however, they differ greatly, and this is how scientists know it's not the metatarsal of H. sapiens.

another species of bipedal hominids that lived exactly the same time as A. afarensis was humans. It came from the same geologic layer as the layer containing some human footprints as well. (but that is debatable Re: the Laetoli Footprints)

A. afarensis lived about 2-3 million years ago, H. sapiens didn't come on the scene till about 200 thousand years ago. There really wasn't any overlap.

 

[Jazer]

This is not about religion, Jazer. What we believe in terms of spirituality cannot and does not translate to science.

You may want to look at the title of a thread before you post. That may help to keep these threads from getting derailed. The whole basis of Creationism is to create some continuity between religion and science. There are three Creationism theorys. YEC that covers the last 6,000 years, GAP that covers from 6,000 to 14,000 years ago. OEC that attempts to cover anything before that. The OEC's are very quiet on this board and no one wants to come forward and defend their position. Everyone wants to attack the YEC, yet that is the MOST easy to defend. The Evidence for Adam and even the evidence for a Garden of Eden as a biodiverse sytem based on the domestication of animals is from the viewpoint of Current Science fairly easy to defend. The DNA evidence points to THREE common ancestors of the Hebrew people in the last 6,000 years. That is exactly what the Genaeologys in the Bible tells us. So there is a lot of agreement between Science and the Bible. Oh, the Skeptics try to deny it all, but they overwelmingly fail in their attempt. Science goes with the evidence and that is where the evidence leads is to show that when it comes to Science and History, the Bible is true.

 

[SkyWriting]

Dinosaurs would have died and lived in seconds, minutes, or hours rather than years and to them, it would have been seconds, minutes, or hours.

While it is possible that time is "accelerated" while miracles occur, I think it's more likely that when God is creating, time doesn't quite exist. Einstein has come up with equations that tell us that at the speed of light, time slows relative to slower moving mass. Other scientists have said that time is related to the deterioration of mass. If God creates perfect reality, it's entirely possible that time doesn't occur. This is why "everlasting life" doesn't sound all that appealing to us, because our reality is flawed and time is passing.

I think, in God's realm, time doesn't pass. So likely, during the Creation process, time doesn't pass. It's a mystery all right.

 

[SkyWriting]

You may want to look at the title of a thread before you post. That may help to keep these threads from getting derailed. The whole basis of Creationism is to create some continuity between religion and science. There are three Creationism theorys. YEC that covers the last 6,000 years, GAP that covers from 6,000 to 14,000 years ago. OEC that attempts to cover anything before that. The OEC's are very quiet on this board and no one wants to come forward and defend their position. Everyone wants to attack the YEC, yet that is the MOST easy to defend. The Evidence for Adam and even the evidence for a Garden of Eden as a biodiverse sytem based on the domestication of animals is from the viewpoint of Current Science fairly easy to defend. The DNA evidence points to THREE common ancestors of the Hebrew people in the last 6,000 years. That is exactly what the Genaeologys in the Bible tells us. So there is a lot of agreement between Science and the Bible. Oh, the Skeptics try to deny it all, but they overwelmingly fail in their attempt. Science goes with the evidence and that is where the evidence leads is to show that when it comes to Science and History, the Bible is true.

I'll just stick to my premise that Science is entirely out of it's element when trying to recreate historical events from evidence. I constantly hold up The Scientific Method as the guideline for what "Real Science" consists of.

There is no room in Science to be speculating about anything to do with historical events. Science does create a written historical record of it's observations, but the sole purpose of that is to recreate future observations for people attempt themselves.

If it's not an observation independently repeatable by the reader, it's not Science.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is your assertion that scientists have no basis for labelling a fossil A. afarensis. This assertion is false. What reason do you have to doubt the experts, except your own presuppositions? What evidence do you have to support your assertion that the label of A. afarensis is incorrect?

what evidence do you have that the fourth metatarsal is indeed A Afarensis. And I don't care how many scientists believe it is.

Most of my citations are on post #644. Here is another source, detailing a skeleton with both skull and feet and bones between.

I didn't see any feet or pelvis in this skeleton

Indeed. So?

So that means that lucyies carrying angle could just be more evidence of arboreal life

Why are you so fixated on Lucy? We have many other fossils of A. afarensis, you know.

I haven't seen any that have a hip bone or bepedal feet

Then why on Earth ask for evidence, if you're going to dismiss it out of hand when it doesn't conform to your presuppositions?

I thought you would provide arguments not just quotes of scientists believing in Lucy

No, they wouldn't. They're roughly the same, but only because they're both bones of the fourth metatarsal. In the details, however, they differ greatly, and this is how scientists know it's not the metatarsal of H. sapiens.

It's the details that are in question

A. afarensis lived about 2-3 million years ago, H. sapiens didn't come on the scene till about 200 thousand years ago. There really wasn't any overlap.

seeing we disagree on the time scale of evolution is there any other evidence that this is a A Afarensis foot bone?