Human Evolution

[anyathesword]

Anya, in addition to what the other guys have been showing you, AND the claim that carbon14 should be gone in a billions of years old earth that I showed you, here are the other two claims I made about Hovind and Wells:

Hovind:

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind Christian Creationist - YouTube

At time stamp 01:07:54, Hovind shows a slide which claims that the baby mammoth Dima was dated to two different ages. He gives a reference for that claim below. This is the paper he cites:

http://137.229.113.30/webpubs/usgs/p/text/p0862.pdf

Not only does that paper not have a mammoth dated to two different ages, it doesn't even mention "Dima" at all. You know why? Because Dima wasn't even found until 1977 (The Fate of the Mammoth: Fossils, Myth, and History - Claudine Cohen - Google Books Page 222.), and this paper was written in 1975.



Never mind the fact that Dima was found in Siberia, and this paper is about Alaska

Wells:

The Case for a Creator (Chapter 3 of 10) - YouTube

At time stamp 1:30, Wells discusses a revised hypothesis of what the early earth atmosphere consisted of, then goes on to say, "Well, if the early earth's atmosphere consisted of those gases, then Stanley Miller's experiment would not work. In fact, he himself tried it, with those gases, and he found that, uh, he couldn't produce any amino acids at all."

That is SO not true. Here is the paper in which Stanley Miller did his test with those gases, from 1983:

Prebiotic synthesis in atmospheres containing CH4, CO, and CO2 - Springer

Which resulted in the production of amino acids....

So there you go, anya. Two more examples of creationist deception.

Oh yes, I didn't look at it..

 

[Nithavela]

Ah, going right to the quotemining creationist sources there, right?

The interesting difference between salamanders and frogs is not if they hop or walk. It's in the minutae of the bone structure. SAying that the difference is in the way of locomotion and then attacking that is a classic strawman and nothing more.

Let's see what THEY have to say about what this creature actually is:

Gerobatrachus hottoni (or whatever its true identity might be) was buried during the events of Genesis 6–9 and is therefore only around 4,500 years old, a descendant of its ancestors of the same kind created around 6,000 years ago.

So you are telling me that they believe that this creature can split up into all different kind of frogs, salamanders and other amphibians in the space of 4500 years, but they DON'T believe that macro evolution is possible on a million time scale?

Awesome.

 

[lasthero]

It's a possibility, but I do not know and the creationist don't know for the moment. It is difficult, you know, just like to classify animals into their taxonomy group...

How could that be a possibility? If all amphibians are the same kind, then it would only follow that, say, cats and dogs are the same kind. There are far fewer differences between a cat and a dog than a frog and a salamander. And I'm willing to bet you don't think cats and dogs are the same kind.

 

[anyathesword]

I'm not expert, but what I find much more interesting that the question of whether it walked or hopped is the fact that it's a FROG WITH A TAIL.

Frogs don't have tails. Salamanders have tails. If frogs and salamanders shared a common ancestor, we would expect to see something like a frog with a tail at some point...and we do see that. If a frog with a tail isn't evidence of frogs sharing ancestry with salamanders, what would be?

But how would you even consider if it was a frog if you don't have the pectoral girdle and legs to know if it hopped? Frogs hop, salamanders walk am I right?

 

[Nithavela]

But how would you even consider if it was a frog if you don't have the pectoral girdle and legs to know if it hopped? Frogs hop, salamanders walk am I right?

Straaaaaaaawman.

 

[anyathesword]

How could that be a possibility? If all amphibians are the same kind, then it would only follow that, say, cats and dogs are the same kind. There are far fewer differences between a cat and a dog than a frog and a salamander. And I'm willing to bet you don't think cats and dogs are the same kind.

And you might be right! I don't know, I'm not an expert.. even experts have a hard time too, you know..

 

[anyathesword]

Straaaaaaaawman.

?

 

[lasthero]

But how would you even consider if it was a frog if you don't have the pectoral girdle and legs to know if it hopped? Frogs hop, salamanders walk am I right?

And all the clearly evident frog features are irrelevant because...?

 

[Nithavela]

You know what a strawman argument is, right, Anya?

 

[anyathesword]

Ah, going right to the quotemining creationist sources there, right?

The interesting difference between salamanders and frogs is not if they hop or walk. It's in the minutae of the bone structure. SAying that the difference is in the way of locomotion and then attacking that is a classic strawman and nothing more.

Let's see what THEY have to say about what this creature actually is:

So you are telling me that they believe that this creature can split up into all different kind of frogs, salamanders and other amphibians in the space of 4500 years, but they DON'T believe that macro evolution is possible on a million time scale?

Awesome.

I'm posting facts about the fossil find itself, that we can see clearly ourselfs. His conclusion is not important to me, it's the actual missing bones.

John Bolt said they need to take extreme caution in interpreting the fossil, he is an evolutionist himself. And don't forget how stasis takes evolutionists of gaurd too.

 

[lasthero]

And you might be right! I don't know, I'm not an expert.. even experts have a hard time too, you know..

Who IS an expert at 'kinds'?

You know, taxonomic classification isn't perfect. There are disagreements. Misunderstandings. Controversies. Sure. But at least you can generally go and figure out what belongs where.

Don't you find it odd that there's absolutely NO agreed on definition of kinds, anywhere? Like, you keep saying that evolution can change a species from one kind to another, but how can you even say that when you don't even seem to have a real definition of what 'kind' is?

It's a license to shift the goalposts. No matter what's presented, you can still say it's not one 'kind' of animal turning into another 'kind', and since you don't have a rigorous definition, it's impossible to satisfy your bar.

 

[anyathesword]

You know what a strawman argument is, right, Anya?

no

 

[46AND2]

It's a possibility, but I do not know and the creationist don't know for the moment. It is difficult, you know, just like to classify animals into their taxonomy group...

But that's not the most important thing..it's the fossil bones of this amphibian.

Does it bother you that Christian scientists are putting very little work into this? Not to mention the fact that what work there is done on defining kinds is completely autonomous. There is no collaboration at all. That's why we get different, contradictory definitions of kinds.

Sure it's hard. But frankly, I don't want to hear about how "hard" it is. Scientists are doing it with species. The research into taxonomy is incredibly extensive. Mind-bogglingly extensive, as a matter of fact.

 

[lasthero]

John Bolt said they need to take extreme caution in interpreting the fossil, he is an
evolutionist himself. And don't forget how stasis takes evolutionists of gaurd too.

Does John Bolt express any doubt that it's a transitional fossil?

 

[anyathesword]

Who IS an expert at 'kinds'?

You know, taxonomic classification isn't perfect. There are disagreements. Misunderstandings. Controversies. Sure. But at least you can generally go and figure out what belongs where.

Don't you find it odd that there's absolutely NO agreed on definition of kinds, anywhere? Like, you keep saying that evolution can change a species from one kind to another, but how can you even say that when you don't even seem to have a real definition of what 'kind' is?

It's a license to shift the goalposts. No matter what's presented, you can still say it's not one 'kind' of animal turning into another 'kind', and since you don't have a rigorous definition, it's impossible to satisfy your bar.

Ok, I know. The point of this is the missing bones. For the evolutionist side. To draw a picture of it with legs when they actually don't know what kind of legs and hips it had. Jumping to conclusions, wouldn't you say?

 

[Nithavela]

A strawman argument is when you set up a completely fabricated and easily refutable argument for something you want to argue against. For example:

"The Theory of Evolution claims that we should all have mutant superpowers. We don't have mutant superpowers, so the Theory of evolution is wrong"

You set up a strawman yourself, and then you defeat it, and by defeating it you try to undermine the position of the other side of the debate.

 

[anyathesword]

Does John Bolt express any doubt that it's a transitional fossil?

Probably if he cautions evolutionist not to jump to conclusions and to be careful on the interpretation of the fossil because of its missing legs and hips.

You realize that many artists have drawn full pictures of animals and part humans from fossil fragments, missing bones, and their imaginations?

Am I right or not?

 

[46AND2]

Probably if he cautions evolutionist not to jump to conclusions and to be careful on the interpretation of the fossil because of its missing legs and hips.

You realize that many artists have drawn full pictures of animals and part humans from fossil fragments, missing bones, and their imaginations?

Am I right or not?

Doesn't matter. Scientists don't use those artist renderings to classify organisms. That's purely for the public's benefit.

 

[anyathesword]

A strawman argument is when you set up a completely fabricated and easily refutable argument for something you want to argue against. For example:

"The Theory of Evolution claims that we should all have mutant superpowers. We don't have mutant superpowers, so the Theory of evolution is wrong"

You set up a strawman yourself, and then you defeat it, and by defeating it you try to undermine the position of the other side of the debate.

I don't understand. All we did is look at the original fossil bones that you posted. That's it.

It's missing very important joints you know. That's all I am saying.

 

[Nithavela]

This fossil is not missing a lot, Anya. Really. One can tell a lot from it's spine and feet. Also, even if we are not able to paint a picture with certainty, we still see a creature with a frog head and a tail!

Now, could we please discuss what is there, instead of what is missing? You haven't adressed any of that, yet, and only concentrated on the things that are missing.