How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Jimmy D]

If you have a backache there are better explanations than poor design.

Yes, there is a much better explanation - the relatively quick evolution of bipedalism in humans.


Common back problems may be caused by evolution of human locomotion

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Comfort is more important to some, i understand that.

Not being comfortable with one's thought and beliefs (mental illness) is a big problem in the world.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, there is a much better explanation - the relatively quick evolution of bipedalism in humans.


Common back problems may be caused by evolution of human locomotion

"May" be caused, reads "definitely" caused. Evolution theory is shot through with such suppositions, that are taken as fact.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Name a specific, accessible paper and state clearly one of the assumptions you believe is made in it. (And by the way, it seems very much that you are arguing about the science, since the conclusions are based upon a science that you readily admit you do not understand, but just name that paper and one assumption.)

Read post #1625

 

[Jimmy D]

So it follows that the rest of our bodies are also not meant to walk upright as well?

Can I suggest a read through this short article....

The Burdens of Being a Biped

 

[Jimmy D]

"May" be caused, reads "definitely" caused. Evolution theory is shot through with such suppositions, that are taken as fact.

Please, as if such language hasn't been explained hundreds of times on these forums.

I thought you were at least trying to be honest in this discussion, I should have known better by now. It doesn't seem to be a quality that creationists particularly value.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"May" be caused, reads "definitely" caused. Evolution theory is shot through with such suppositions, that are taken as fact.

It's called intellectual honesty. You'll find that in every science paper.

 

[tas8831]

"May" be caused, reads "definitely" caused. Evolution theory is shot through with such suppositions, that are taken as fact.

If you say so. After all, you have an encyclopedic knowledge of all things related to evolution, such as what tissues are, anatomy, etc....

 

[Ophiolite]

Read post #1625

Here is post #1625.

"May" be caused, reads "definitely" caused. Evolution theory is shot through with such suppositions, that are taken as fact.

Your first "sentence" is not a sentence. Consequently it is ambiguous. Here are my best estimates of what you meant and my reaction to them.

Interpretation 1: You are challenging the use of the word "may" and asserting that the article makes an unjustified "definite" claim. From what I can see, the article very definitely reads may throughout. Perhaps you can point me to where it says definitely.

Interpretation 2: You unaccountably feel that being realistic and speaking of possibilities rather than certainties is equivalent to making assumptions. If such is the case your ignorance extends from evolutionary theory and the scientific method to English comprehension.

Interpretation 3: Unknown. You may have meant something else entirely.

Now I must make an apology. It seems I was not scrupulously clear in my request.

1. I wish you to cite a specific, accessible research paper. I do not wish to read a simplified write up of such a paper. I do not wish to read a summary of such a paper. I do not wish to read a popularised version of such a paper. I want the paper itself.
2. I wish you to identify an assumption made in that paper. I don't want a vague, ambiguous reference to an assumption. I would like you to specify the page and paragraph that contain the assumption, a statement of the assumption and a brief description from you as to why you believe it is an assumption.

I look forward to a meaningful reply. Thank you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So it follows that the rest of our bodies are also not meant to walk upright as well?

Ever wonder why so many people have back problems later in life, even if they aren't overweight? Our bodies are not ideal for upright walking in the slightest.

Also, consider the ostrich, an organism will millions upon millions of years of evolution contributing to bipedal movement than humans. They have less than half the number of bones in their feet than humans do, and they are far more rigid. All our extra bones just make it easier for the arches in our feet to wear down, resulting in pain when walking. It makes sense that they are there, since our ancestors had prehensile feet that utilized the extra mobility of these bones, but it would make 0 sense to design a bipedal organism this way from scratch. Our feet are a painful in between, being neither ideal for grasping nor ideal for running.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can I suggest a read through this short article....

The Burdens of Being a Biped

Not a member, couldn't access article.

All of those problems are caused by abuse whether by the individual or their antecedents. None are caused by inherent weakness in the original design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ever wonder why so many people have back problems later in life, even if they aren't overweight? Our bodies are not ideal for upright walking in the slightest.

Also, consider the ostrich, an organism will millions upon millions of years of evolution contributing to bipedal movement than humans. They have less than half the number of bones in their feet than humans do, and they are far more rigid. All our extra bones just make it easier for the arches in our feet to wear down, resulting in pain when walking. It makes sense that they are there, since our ancestors had prehensile feet that utilized the extra mobility of these bones, but it would make 0 sense to design a bipedal organism this way from scratch. Our feet are a painful in between, being neither ideal for grasping nor ideal for running.

We weren't designed to function like animals. Man has a greater purpose than just survival. Would we even be having this conversation if we walked on all fours?

 

[bhsmte]

Not a member, couldn't access article.

All of those problems are caused by abuse whether by the individual or their antecedents. None are caused by inherent weakness in the original design.

Wrong.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread had a small clean up. The site rules include:

​

Flaming and Goading

• Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
• Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
• NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, smileys or post ratings which are clearly meant to goad. Quoting and then editing another members post to change the original meaning, commonly referred to as "fixed it for you" (FIFY), is considered goading.
• Offensive derogatory nicknames and egregious inflammatory comments about public figures may be considered goading.
• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
• If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

Keep it on the topic and not the member.

​

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It was precisely detailed study of animal and plant anatomy that led Darwin to his theory of evolution. I'm in favor of accepting both. Dear readers: each of you is both a creation of God and a development from earthly parents. In like manner, evolution happened and God created all of life.

No, it was a mistake that Finches were reproductively isolated that led Darwin to his incorrect belief and incorrect classification as separate species.

Now with the sequencing of their DNA we understand they have been interbreeding from the start. Reproductive isolation never happened, and speciation never occurred. Some just refuse to accept the facts is all that a mistaken belief from the beginning led to the ToE.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, it was a mistake that Finches were reproductively isolated that led Darwin to his incorrect belief and incorrect classification as separate species.

Now with the sequencing of their DNA we understand they have been interbreeding from the start. Reproductive isolation never happened, and speciation never occurred. Some just refuse to accept the facts is all that a mistaken belief from the beginning led to the ToE.

Lol

It takes some amazing powers of cognitive dissonance the way you can dissmiss 90% of a paper and focus on the tiny part you think supports your “unusual” ideas.

Well done.

Can you point to any research that suggests “no speciation occurred” or that they “were never reproductively isolated”?

I know that all the papers you’ve cited state otherwise even though you refuse to accept it.

 

[xianghua]

Problem I have with that is while that may be said to point to "a" creator, it tells us nothing about who said creator "is".

the only thing we do know for sure is the existence of such a designer (check my signature link for instance). the rest is just a bonus.

 

[VirOptimus]

the only thing we do know for sure is the existence of such a designer (check my signature link for instance). the rest is just a bonus.

No we dont no matter how hard you believe.

 

[tas8831]

Not being comfortable with one's thought and beliefs (mental illness) is a big problem in the world.

Not as big of a problem as being confident in one's incorrect and baseless thoughts and beliefs.

Dunning and Kruger (and others) have documented that those with the least competence are usually the most confident, while those with great knowledge are more tentative - a condition mentioned by Darwin:

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

 

[tas8831]

Tas8831 gave you verifiable and confirmable evidence,where is yours? . It was evidence like that which lead biologists to retire the name Pongidae. So where is your evidence that chimps and gorillas should not be in Hominidae

They have no evidence...