Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

This isnt even a real argument here. You have the guy who says bioturbation is almost non existant or perhaps ends prematurely.

But then you have complex subsurface bioturbation, including complex networks of tunneling found throughout the fossil record.

The best someone could say, as per the research above, is that less complex bioturbation occurred in pre silurian times (430-550 mya). Which is actually, evidence supporting evolution, as per the paper. The paper above is not referring to the rest of the 430-0 mya geologic record, which is still a vast majority.

 

[Job 33:6]

Read

Lower Palaeozoic successions are, by all metrics, characterized by secular variation in mixing intensity; strata from each of the three chronological intervals are distinctly and significantly different from those of the other intervals. Trace fossil assemblages increase in density and individual trace fossils increase in size and complexity through the lower Palaeozoic.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't suppose a global flood could explain why burrows increase in depth and complexity with time.

The red flag is being waved, and you guys are just in denial.

No, it couldn't be....burrows increasing in depth and complexity through time? Well this would support that PhD talking about evolution. We can't have that!

Imagine...a completely independent study on pre historic burrows, supporting a theory in biology which just so happens to propose that life itself also underwent morphological fluctuation through time. Impossible.

 

[Job 33:6]

And you know what else? Those giant triassic burrows arent from the ordovician...what do you know? We have yet another way to disprove an old earth and evolution, all in one...

Find a giant complex system of burrows from the cambrian strata. Its just like asking where the cambrian bunny rabbit is. Its the same question. But as soon as you cross your ordovician biodiversification event, its fair game.

 

[Job 33:6]

I could post this picture all day, and we can talk about how a giant wave came in, dropped thousands of feet of soil on top of some crayfish, and somehow they still decided to just burrow some complex networks in the soil as if nothing had changed.

Look at this one

There is a person literally inside the prehistoric burrow from the pliocene.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10420940.2016.1223654

Someone suggested there was little bio turbation, then we looked at reality and we found allll sorts of bioturbation in every single period of the geologic record.

 

[Job 33:6]

"In the last ten years, more than 1,500 large burrows have been discovered in southern and southeastern Brazil, dug in rocks that include weathered granitic and basaltic rocks, sandstones, and other consolidated sediments. Their presence in geological units of Plio-Pleistocene age suggests that large extinct mammals produced these structures. The internal walls exhibit scratches and grooves left by the animals that inhabited these structures. The burrows are straight or slightly sinuous tunnels that measure up to tens of meters in length. One smaller type measures up to 1.5 meter in diameter, and the larger type can reach 2 meters in height and 4 meters in width, suggesting that such structures have been produced by at least two kinds of organisms. This contribution proposes a classification for these ichnofossils under the generic designation Megaichnus igen. nov., consisting of two ichnospecies identified so far: M. major and M. minor ispp. nov. Although the exact identity of the producers of the burrows is yet unknown, the dimensions and morphology point to ground sloths and giant armadillos."

Wait wait, ground sloths and giant armadillos? But they were killed in the flood. So, how....what...if they were killed in the flood, how were they digging giant tunnels to live in? How much time did they have to do this? If thousands of feet of flood sediment were burying them alive?

 

[NobleMouse]

(Barbarian observes that anything put up on a messge board is up for discussion)

Or if anyone else wants to talk about it. That's how discussion boards work.

Your discussion with me on it has ended, though yes you are correct in that you are free to continue ranting on about it with others to your (and their) heart's content.

(Barbarian notes that Kurt Wise, an honest creationist, admits that the many transitional series he mentioned are "strong evidence" for macroevolution, and that creationists have no way to explain such things)

We can conclude that he has faith that there is. The evidence certainly is consistent with creation. Not YE creationism, of course, but there is evidence for creation.

Wise listed 19 series of transitionals, each with several to hundreds of transitional forms within them. That's huge. And there are many, many more. Would you like me to show you some more of them?

Noble Mouse observes that The Barbarian attempts to stereotype all biblical creation beliefs on the views of one biblical creationist, as is empirically evident throughout The Barbarian's posts here in this thread.

No one said he did. But there is a huge number of transitional forms. He lists sixteen complete series of forms each with numerous transitionals. And that's just a sampling. If you like, we can test the idea that there are many transitions. Would you like me to show you?

Post #929, by you:
"He's a creationist, after all. But an honest one. He openly admits that the huge number of transitional series (he lists over a dozen series, each with a number of transitionals) is "strong evidence" for macroevolution..."

YOU said he openly admits that the huge number..., pay attention. And no, I would not be interested in you showing me fossils and then overlaying them with your distorted and unsupported views that they are transitional forms. I've already heard these claims before by you and others, thank you.

Nope. Here's a way to test that. Show me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can find a transitional form.

Again, see post #929, I just proved that you use exaggeration. Test completed, you're busted. All you will demonstrate for us (again, ad nauseam), is your ability to draw the conclusion of common ancestry on the basis of similarities between life forms when similarities (whether talking about morphology, hemoglobin, DNA, etc...) fits the paradigm of biblical creation just fine.

No,that's wrong. It merely refers to an organism that has apomorphic characters of two different groups. So easily testable without evolution.

"apomorphy (derived trait) A novel evolutionary trait that is unique to a particular species and all its descendants and which can be used as a defining character for a species or group in phylogenetic terms. Hence, the possession of feathers is unique to birds and defines all members of the class Aves."

So YES, "transitional" form IS a term specific to the evolutionary paradigm... right there in the definition of apomorphy above it is described as an EVOLUTIONARY trait... which means it requires a biased view that evolution is true in order to believe something represents a transitional form. You are so brainwashed that anytime there is a similar trait, you impulsively conclude common ancestry, incapable of seeing it any other way.

And yes, I know that Wise has faith that humans aren't apes. He is a creationist, after all.

I think he honestly believes what he says. But remember, he says evidence comes second to his personal interpretation of the Bible.

Apparently not. Wise still hasn't refuted his finding that transitionals are "strong evidence"for macroevolution, and he still hasn't found a way to explain them in creationist terms.

So nothing changed so far.

The faith of [Wise] is in God's word, thus he knows humans aren't apes. You imply here that faith in God's word has clouded his ability to see the truth... yet you fail to see this same possibility in your own faith. Your faith is misplaced in evolution, which is why you (mis)classify humans and apes together. One only classifies humans with apes, IF they believe evolution is true. Simply classifying them together doesn't make it true.

There were always those who thought the earth was young. Many pagans thought so, and this affected some Christian theologians. However, since the Bible doesn't say how old Earth is, most theologians didn't care much about it.

Sources with URL references please. Even if you cite some random articles, you have no way of asserting that beliefs held by pagans thousands of years ago are what influenced Christian theologians vs it being the other way around.

It's your doctrine; you can explain it. Yes, there have been creationists who argued that God put fossils in the ground to fool us. Most OE creationists, and even many YE creationists have moved away from that kind of thinking.

You seem to think you're the authority of explaining it (and everything else)... yet you've been shown to be wrong numerous times now. Maybe you should get out of the business of telling people what they believe, don't believe, why they believe what they believe, etc... While you're at it, also please stop telling everyone that they are Catholic. The word may be intended to mean all embracing or 'universal' as you put it, but not everyone here prays to saints (there is one mediator between God and man), not everybody prays with a rosary, not everybody believes in purgatory, and not everybody has the apocrypha in their Bible... just stop it - this is disrespectful and in poor taste. In Acts 11:26 it states: "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians." If people today are disciples and follows of Christ and wish to be referred to as a "Christian" (as opposed to being called 'Catholic'), it is perfectly fine to do so now just as it was back in Acts. There are some aspects of the Catholic faith today, like those I mentioned above (and I don't claim all Catholics believe in these things, but I was raised Catholic and was taught all of these things so I know in general they are taught and believed by many within Catholicism), in which not everyone who is a Christian agrees with or follows...

We fool ourselves only when we reject what God has said in favor of insisting a conclusion we've reached, such as YE creationism.

Nope, such as evolution... God made them male and female from the beginning, not amoebas from the beginning. Biblical creationism does not reject God, it really does believe we were created male and female, from the beginning, that we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, that Adam and Eve sinned and thus we all have a sin nature, that all of creation really is cursed as a result of man's sin, that the linage from Adam to Noah are of real people, that the lineage from Noah to Abraham are of real people, that the lineage from Abraham to David are real people, that the lineage from David to Jesus are... real people. Biblical creationistm does not reject God or His word, as you can see. You will always fail at this argument. If you want to argue on the basis of scientifically held beliefs then that is one thing...

Can't. The methodology of science is entirely limited to the physical universe. That's how it is. Even Richard Dawkins admits that science can't refute God.

Then the conclusions from methodological science is limited to natural (physical) phenomenons and assumptions... which will be an incorrect conclusion (you've already revealed that you accept the birth of Jesus by a virgin, yet science cannot conclude this, thus scientifically it would be argued that Jesus was not born of a virgin... and science would be wrong). So you're whole argument against biblical creation is based upon solely naturalistic causalities and expectations, which according to God's word is likewise, incorrect. This is why I said before that you are being double-minded... you accept miracles over here (Jesus' birth) then reject miracles over there (creation).

As Christians knew over 1500 years ago, if you let the text interpret itself, you see that it is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings before a sun existed. So we know it's figurative.

YOU'RE being absurd in this... light already existed as of day 1 (it's right there in Genesis 1:3-4, come on!) and had been separated from the darkness. What are going to do from here, throw more naturalistic arguments at me, further contradicting yourself in that on one hand you accept miracles and on the other reject them??

You're upset and venting so I'll forgive that libel. You should know better; it might feel good now, but you'll have to live with it afterwards.

Thus far I've lost zero minutes of sleep.

Of course he created organisms with analogous and homologous structures. You just don't approve of the way He did it. And yes, I'm aware that Wise prefers his personal interpretation of the Bible to the evidence. He very bluntly and openly admits it.

What I don't approve of are unsupported pseudo-scientific conclusions that are aimed at creating an alternative truth of creation, ultimately attempting to undermine and attack God's word. If evolution was true and was truly only viable as coming from the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, the one who sent His only Son, Jesus, to die for our sins then why is it that 98% of AAAS scientists believe evolution is true but only 33% believe in the God of the Christian Bible? Feed me another line...

Support for statistics given above:
For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate
Scientists and Belief

So as it turns out, the majority of your fellow scientists don't buy in to the idea that evolution was God's way of creating life either... in fact, many atheists lean on this very idea in support of their position that NO god exists whatsoever... because they feel evolution solely can explain the existence of life using the natural phenomenon of random mutation and natural selection.

 

[NobleMouse]

How many feet is that per day? At the grand canyon, post proterozoic rock spans some 8000 feet in depth. If the flood occured in 365 days, thats 21 feet of sediment per day that is deposited.

Tell me, please tell me, if 21 feet of soil, in a single day, was dropped on an amphibian, how many hours would that amphibian have to make a 5 foot tunnel?

I wouldn't try breaking down the flood into equal/even distributions across time... I don't think it is assumed/known that all the same events of the flood happened the entire time, evenly distributed across time... this is uniformitarian thinking trying to be applied to a catastrophic (non-uniformitarian) event.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

No, it really doesn't, which is why you can't point out any underlying assumptions I made.

I can make predictions about genetics based on common ancestry. You can't make predictions based on special creation. After all the words you write, all the attempts to dismiss and demean people here, all of the hand-waving -- I can still make predictions and you still can't. Why is that?

Again, Stephen, it depends on your assumptions. Perhaps the mutations you are examining are not really mutations.

Who are these sharp geneticists? You've offered Tomkins, whose attempts are laughable.

Laughable? Your worldview is planted in the silly notion that man and the chimpanzee have a common ancestor, rather than a common designer, and you call Tomkins laughable? That would be laughable, if it was not so tragic.

I am certain you are familiar with this debate, Stephen:

Finding Adam in the Genome: A BioLogos cover-up?​

Tell us where Nathaniel Jeanson goes wrong.

Are you familiar with the English word "if"? Do you know what it's doing in the bolded sentence? I am testing the hypothesis of common ancestry, not assuming common ancestry.

Did you write this?

"This kind of thing is the reason that most geneticists have no doubt about common descent: it makes sense of everything we see."​

I don't believe you. Show me a creation scientists or ID'er who has looked at these data and drawn a different conclusion.

They will get around to it.

Direct creation by God. Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, probably a few thousand years ago. The whole ball of wax. That's how I was raised.

What changed your mind? God led me in the opposite direction?

I am aware of no arguments against common ancestry from the DI. The DI scientists I'm familiar with all seem to accept common ancestry and an origin for humans at least hundreds of thousands of years ago. Do you think they're brainwashed, too?

Are you familiar with Douglas Axe, Casey Luskin and Ann Gauger? In their book, "Science & Human Origins", they seem to be arguing against claims of common descent (though I believe Axe is a creationist). And Stephen Meyer recently said this:

"[The] second meaning of evolution is the idea of universal common descent, that all organisms are related by common ancestry. I happen to be skeptical about that. Some proponents of intelligent design aren’t, but it is at least logically possible to believe that God caused the kind of continuous change that is depicted in the Darwinian tree of life, and therefore you could have a meaningful form of theistic evolution that affirmed common descent. Though I think there are some very good reasons scientifically to doubt it. There’s huge discontinuity in the fossil record, and increasingly we’re realizing in the genomic patterns that we see." [David Klinghoffer, Stephen Meyer on Theistic Evolution, "Design Debate in a Nutshell: Mind Over Matter? Or Matter Over Mind?". Evolution News & Science Today, 2018] ​

Klinghoffer is on the fence, but there are others who reject common descent.

I've never seen a valid one from such sites, i.e. one that wasn't seriously misleading in some way.

Perhaps you don't want to see them.

Dan

 

[sfs]

Again, Stephen, it depends on your assumptions. Perhaps the mutations you are examining are not really mutations.

Based on my "assumptions", I can make accurate predictions. Based on your assumptions, you can't. You have absolutely no explanation for this fact. You can't explain why genetic differences should look like mutations if they're not.

Laughable?

Well, contemptible if you'd prefer, but I was trying to be nice.

Your worldview is planted in the silly notion that man and the chimpanzee have a common ancestor, rather than a common designer, and you call Tomkins laughable?

No, my worldview is planted in a desire to accept reality.

I am certain you are familiar with this debate, Stephen:

No, I'm not, and I'm done chasing after yet another of your creationist arguments. You've had no defense when I've pointed out previous errors. All you've done is mock me and move on to another one.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I just want to comment on this one statement.

This is actually significant, because in reality, many of the intelligent design movement, are in fact old earth christian scientists. And some, Michael Behe in particular, who is widely known (regardless of how few ID scientists there are), actually supports common descent, which is a big deal.

Even some of the most well known ID scientists, themselves, would actually and have actually, openly accepted concepts presented by regular everyday scientists, such as the existence of the fossil succession and it being evidence of common descent.

Which is to say that, while Behe resists darwinian evolution, he simultaneously accepts concepts such as...land mammals transitioning to whales. The evidence is so overwhelming, that even predominant ID supporters accept major lines of evidence for common descent.

I have this comment: there is no evidence for whale evolution -- just wishful thinking. And I have this statement by one of the co-founders of the Discovery Institute:

"the more people learn about the philosophical content of what scientists are calling the "fact of evolution," the less they are going to like it... Some readers may wonder why the scientists won't admit that there are mysteries beyond our comprehension, and that one of them may be how those complex animal groups could have evolved directly from pre-existing bacteria and algae without leaving any evidence of the transition. The reason that such an admission is out of the question is that it would open the door to creationism, which in this context means not simply biblical fundamentalism, but any invocation of a creative intelligence or purpose outside the natural order. Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof " [Phillip E. Johnson, "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism"]​

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

I wouldn't try breaking down the flood into equal/even distributions across time... I don't think it is assumed/known that all the same events of the flood happened the entire time, evenly distributed across time... this is uniformitarian thinking trying to be applied to a catastrophic (non-uniformitarian) event.

Kurt wise broke down the flood into distributions over time, he made it out to be thousands of feet separated into 5 episodes, apparently.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have this comment: there is no evidence for whale evolution -- just wishful thinking. And I have this statement by one of the co-founders of the Discovery Institute:

"the more people learn about the philosophical content of what scientists are calling the "fact of evolution," the less they are going to like it... Some readers may wonder why the scientists won't admit that there are mysteries beyond our comprehension, and that one of them may be how those complex animal groups could have evolved directly from pre-existing bacteria and algae without leaving any evidence of the transition. The reason that such an admission is out of the question is that it would open the door to creationism, which in this context means not simply biblical fundamentalism, but any invocation of a creative intelligence or purpose outside the natural order. Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof " [Phillip E. Johnson, "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism"]​

Dan

And this is what we call...changing the subjuct.

Any response for how mammals created giant burrows that we can walk inside of, somehow during the flood?

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian observes that anything put up on a discussion board is up for discussion)

Your discussion with me on it has ended,

Apparently not quite yet.

(Barbarian notes that Kurt Wise, an honest creationist, admits that the many transitional series he mentioned are "strong evidence" for macroevolution, and that creationists have no way to explain such things)

We can conclude that he has faith that there is. The evidence certainly is consistent with creation. Not YE creationism, of course, but there is evidence for creation.

Wise listed 19 series of transitionals, each with several to hundreds of transitional forms within them. That's huge. And there are many, many more. Would you like me to show you some more of them?

Noble Mouse observes that The Barbarian attempts to stereotype all biblical creation beliefs on the views of one biblical creationist

No. Wise is hardly a typical creationist. He has a doctorate in paleontology, and he honestly admits that the huge number of transitional series are "strong evidence" for evolution. He also quite honestly admits that there is no creationist explanation for these series, although he expresses faith that there someday might be one.

YOU said he openly admits that the huge number...

...of transitional are strong evidence for evolution he cites 16 such series, each with several to dozens of transitionals, and this is only a small portion of the huge number known today.

And no, I would not be interested in you showing me fossils and then overlaying them with your distorted and unsupported views that they are transitional forms.

As you learned, they are testably transitional. Remember the definition. If you forgot, it's an organism with apomorphic characters of two major groups, such dinosaurs with feathers, or mammals that lay reptilian eggs.

And you've confused apomorphic characters with evolutionary descent. I suspect the definition you showed us, is from a dictionary, rather than from a science text. How do I know that? Because apomorphic characters do not necessarily mean ancestry. For example, the dinosaur Archaeopteryx has apomorphic characters of a dinosaur, with a few bird like characters. That does not mean that Aracheopteryx is the ancestor of birds. It's close to the line that gave rise to birds, but it is not the "link"; it's a transitional.

The faith of [Wise] is in God's word, thus he knows humans aren't apes.

We fit nicely into the phylogeny of apes:

You imply here that faith in God's word has clouded his ability to see the truth.

No. He clearly admits that there is strong evidence for macroevolution. He merely says that he has more confidence in his interpretation of scripture than any possible evidence. It's an honest admission of the truth. He has no illusions about the evidence; he just relies on his faith instead.

Your faith is misplaced in evolution,

Faith is for God. I have no faith in anything in the natural world. As I said, "In God we trust; everything else needs evidence."

which is why you (mis)classify humans and apes together. One only classifies humans with apes, IF they believe evolution is true.

Nope. Linnaeus, for example, didn't even know about evolution, but wrote that as a scholar he should classify humans and apes together.

Instead of telling us all what to believe, it might be useful if you provided some evidence for your assertions. As you see, you're often wrong.

While you're at it, also please stop telling everyone that they are Catholic.

Not every Christian is large "C" Catholic. But all who have faith in Christ are members of the "holy catholic church" as even Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians acknowledge in the Creed.

The word may be intended to mean all embracing or 'universal' as you put it, but not everyone here prays to saints

Anyone who affirms the Apostle's Creed acknowledges the Communion of Saints.

Paul writes to Timothy, regarding a believer who has died:

2 Timothy 1:16 The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: [17] But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. [18] The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.
In Acts 11:26 it states:

Nope, such as evolution... God made them male and female from the beginning,

Well, let's see what God has to say about it...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. ... [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. ...

So God makes it explicit what was there in the beginning, and there was no male or female. Jesus is speaking of the beginning of humanity, not the beginning.

Biblical creationism does not reject God,

Even YE creationism doesn't reject God. It merely rejects some of His word in the Bible. Life ex nihilo, for example, is ruled out by God in Genesis.

Then the conclusions from methodological science is limited to natural (physical) phenomenons and assumptions... which will be an incorrect conclusion (you've already revealed that you accept the birth of Jesus by a virgin, yet science cannot conclude this,

But scientists can. You see, science can't rule out miracles and has nothing whatever to say about them; it can't confirm or reject them.

thus scientifically it would be argued that Jesus was not born of a virgin...

No, that's wrong, too. As you see, science doesn't and can't deny miracles. In fact, it's highly unlikely, but parthenogenesis is possible, scientifically.

So you're whole argument against biblical creation

I support Biblical creation. I reject YE creationism, which is a very different thing. One is God's word. The other is a modern, man-made doctrine.

YOU'RE being absurd in this... light already existed as of day 1 (it's right there in Genesis 1:3-4, come on!)

Sorry, that's wrong. Morning is when the sun comes up. Evening is when it goes down. Christians from ancient times have cited this fact when rejecting a literal reinterpretation of Genesis.

So as it turns out, the majority of your fellow scientists don't buy in to the idea that evolution was God's way of creating life either...

Most of your fellow Christians don't accept YE creationism. The bandwagon argument is not a very good one for YE creationism.

And as you learned, even atheistic scientists admit that science does not rule out God.

 

[NobleMouse]

Kurt wise broke down the flood into distributions over time, he made it out to be thousands of feet separated into 5 episodes, apparently.

I do recall there being different distributions... but did not pick up on a reference that they were presumed equal in time (say, 5 periods of 73 days each to arrive at 365 days). Not saying it could not have been equal, but just pointing out it is plausible they were not equal in time.

 

[NobleMouse]

Wise listed 19 series of transitionals, each with several to hundreds of transitional forms within them. That's huge. And there are many, many more. Would you like me to show you some more of them?

To clarify, you said it's huge, not Kurt Wise then. I'll just point that out for the benefit of everyone here... and again, since you don't listen, no, still not interested in your delusioned views of fossils.

No. Wise is hardly a typical creationist. He has a doctorate in paleontology, and he honestly admits that the huge number of transitional series are "strong evidence" for evolution. He also quite honestly admits that there is no creationist explanation for these series, although he expresses faith that there someday might be one.

...of transitional are strong evidence for evolution he cites 16 such series, each with several to dozens of transitionals, and this is only a small portion of the huge number known today.

You keep citing him. Evidentially true. Also, he doesn't go into the myriads of fossils you believe are transitionals within each series, so you don't concretely know what he believes as it relates to specific fossils... again, you extend and exaggerate what he has stated to mean more that what he actually says.

As you learned, they are testably transitional. Remember the definition. If you forgot, it's an organism with apomorphic characters of two major groups, such dinosaurs with feathers, or mammals that lay reptilian eggs.

I did not learn that - you simply repeated the biased view and reaffirmed this view in your own mind. Laying eggs does not unequivocally mean common ancestry any more than all the other references you've made.

No point repeating this further since you're not getting it...

And you've confused apomorphic characters with evolutionary descent. I suspect the definition you showed us, is from a dictionary, rather than from a science text. How do I know that? Because apomorphic characters do not necessarily mean ancestry. For example, the dinosaur Archaeopteryx has apomorphic characters of a dinosaur, with a few bird like characters. That does not mean that Aracheopteryx is the ancestor of birds. It's close to the line that gave rise to birds, but it is not the "link"; it's a transitional.

So by your own admission, scientists have their own definitions... and apparently cannot effectively communicate definitions to organizations such as Merriam-Webster. That's a side issue I'm neither concerned with nor surprised.

We fit nicely into the phylogeny of apes:

Oh good, the numbers game... I think I may have called it out previously that you would just throw more naturalistic arguments at me. This just proves your evolutionary bias. A deviation in DNA of just 0.00001 can cause sickle-cell anemia so it seems your scaling is irrelevant.

No. He clearly admits that there is strong evidence for macroevolution. He merely says that he has more confidence in his interpretation of scripture than any possible evidence. It's an honest admission of the truth. He has no illusions about the evidence; he just relies on his faith instead.

Given your history of exaggeration and mis-quoting, nothing you claim about K. Wise will be taken with any degree of seriousness going forward. Up to you if you want to continue investing time in continuing to misrepresent.

Faith is for God. I have no faith in anything in the natural world. As I said, "In God we trust; everything else needs evidence."

Nope. Linnaeus, for example, didn't even know about evolution, but wrote that as a scholar he should classify humans and apes together.

Don't care what thought process Linnaeus had for rationalizing why he believed humans and apes should be classified together. Linnaeus apparently did not believe his bible as it relates to creation either.

Not every Christian is large "C" Catholic. But all who have faith in Christ are members of the "holy catholic church" as even Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians acknowledge in the Creed.

Anyone who affirms the Apostle's Creed acknowledges the Communion of Saints.

Paul writes to Timothy, regarding a believer who has died:

2 Timothy 1:16 The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: [17] But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. [18] The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.
In Acts 11:26 it states:

Again, don't call or insist people are something they have not professed to be.

Well, let's see what God has to say about it...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. ... [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. ...

So God makes it explicit what was there in the beginning, and there was no male or female. Jesus is speaking of the beginning of humanity, not the beginning.

Soooooo weak... you expect anyone here to buy this??? Jesus is referring back to Genesis and the creation account - it's what's written there ("have you not read" He said). There is no context in support of your view and the evidence in both Genesis and Matthew 19:4 is in favor of Jesus referring to Adam & Eve.

Even YE creationism doesn't reject God. It merely rejects some of His word in the Bible. Life ex nihilo, for example, is ruled out by God in Genesis.

Since you are such a big fan of K. Wise and feel he is the face of biblical creationism, can you find where he has specifically said he is a proponent of ex nihilo? Or are you now just picking the minority views of a few people you've come across here in this forum and falsely presenting it as a broad generalization all biblical creationists believe?

But scientists can. You see, science can't rule out miracles and has nothing whatever to say about them; it can't confirm or reject them.

No, that's wrong, too. As you see, science doesn't and can't deny miracles. In fact, it's highly unlikely, but parthenogenesis is possible, scientifically.

Is that why we see miracles so highly (NEVER) referenced in articles and scientific journals as it relates to creation?

Also parthenogenesis is in reference to plants! Try to stay on topic, we're talking about Mary and Jesus in case you forgot! They're not plants.

I support Biblical creation. I reject YE creationism, which is a very different thing. One is God's word. The other is a modern, man-made doctrine.

Nobody here is clear on what you support with how you argue everything... especially when nonsensical like suggesting science may have an explanation for how Jesus was born to a virgin, then reference a process specific to plants. That's just comical, and sad...

Sorry, that's wrong. Morning is when the sun comes up. Evening is when it goes down. Christians from ancient times have cited this fact when rejecting a literal reinterpretation of Genesis.

The light was called day and the darkness was called night... still on day one here. What do we call the transitions between day and night?? All the text in Genesis favors the view of days being actual days and this is affirmed by Jewish and biblical scholars. You can make it be whatever you want, but your arguments are based on what is NOT stated rather than what IS stated in the text. You keep trying to build a case here but will continue to find no strong support.

Most of your fellow Christians don't accept YE creationism. The bandwagon argument is not a very good one for YE creationism.

My intent was to show your prior argument about evolution being portrayed as the only/obvious way God did it was void, thus, why most scientists still reject God yet do believe in evolution... not to build a bandwagon argument. I'm well aware of where Christians stand on the creation/evolution debate.

 

[Job 33:6]

I do recall there being different distributions... but did not pick up on a reference that they were presumed equal in time (say, 5 periods of 73 days each to arrive at 365 days). Not saying it could not have been equal, but just pointing out it is plausible they were not equal in time.

According to Kurt Wise, there are 5 stratigraphic sections that are the product of 5 mega waves that passed over north america. One wave that formed the cambrian, one the ordovician, one in the later silurian to devonian, one in the carboniferous and one that sort of takes up most of the mesozoic, and then like maybe half of one in the cesozoic.

So if this is the case... then one wave of the mesozoic would have deposited >7000 feet of sediment (actually it would be a greater amount because there are currently 7000 feet of dense compacted mesozoic rock at the grand canyon) in a single wave.

Now, think about that for a second. How exactly is it that...dinosaurs, such as...those of the jurassic or cretaceous...how did they somehow manage to...make nests or even walk or do anything...if 7000 feet were deposited by a single giant wave? We have found predators and prey together with predator teeth marks in their respective prey, in the mesozoic. There are unique independent ecosystems throughout the mesozoic. And this guy is suggesting that it all just got deposited, 7000+ feet of it, all by a giant...just one giant wave.

It really does sound ridiculous when you think about it.

 

[The Barbarian]

To clarify, you said it's huge, not Kurt Wise then.

You're the only one who even suggested he said that. He merely cited many different series of transitionals, each with several to dozens of transitional forms.

I'll just point that out for the benefit of everyone here...

Good idea. And the offer is still open for me to show you many, many more of them. As you know, there's a huge number of them. As you know, Dr. Wise points out that they are strong evidence for macroevolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. Wise is hardly a typical creationist. He has a doctorate in paleontology, and he honestly admits that the huge number of transitional series are "strong evidence" for evolution. He also quite honestly admits that there is no creationist explanation for these series, although he expresses faith that there someday might be one.

As you know, he cited 16 different series of transitionals, involving a much larger number of transitional forms.

You keep citing him. Evidentially true. Also, he doesn't go into the myriads of fossils you believe are transitionals within each series, so you don't concretely know what he believes as it relates to specific fossils...

Since he defines "transitional" as paleontologists do, it's a pretty safe bet.

As you learned, they are testably transitional. Remember the definition. If you forgot, it's an organism with apomorphic characters of two major groups, such dinosaurs with feathers, or mammals that lay reptilian eggs.

I did not learn that - you simply repeated the biased view and reaffirmed this view in your own mind.

It's just a fact. That's how they are defined.

Laying eggs does not unequivocally mean common ancestry any more than all the other references you've made.

It's just another prediction of evolutionary theory that was confirmed. Notice that monotremes don't lay bird eggs, which would have been a serious problem for evolutionary theory. They lay reptilian eggs, which is exactly what would be expected for a transitional mammal. They also have a reptilian cloaca, reptilian shoulder girdle, so on.

So by your own admission, scientists have their own definitions...

They invented the term, so they get to decide what it means. As you have probably figured out by now, it's not safe to expect dictionaries to accurately describe technical terms.

(Barbarian demonstrates evidence showing that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than to other apes)

Oh good, the numbers game

That's how science works. Testable claims and evidence. As you see, genetics has confirmed predictions about relatedness made much earlier.

I think I may have called it out previously that you would just throw more naturalistic arguments at me.

Science works like that. Imagination is fine, but it's better for hypothesizing than conclusions.

This just proves your evolutionary bias.

You know how scientists are. All about facts.

A deviation in DNA of just 0.00001 can cause sickle-cell anemia so it seems your scaling is irrelevant.

Nice try. As you learned, genetic data shows humans and chimpanzees to be more closely related to each other, than either is to anything else. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Given your history of exaggeration and mis-quoting,

I don't think false accusations will help you now. Abuse really only makes it worse for you. Instead of making up stories, you should try to pull some facts together and present a cogent argument.

Assuming you want anyone to take you seriously.

Don't care what thought process Linnaeus had for rationalizing why he believed humans and apes should be classified together.

He reluctantly concluded that was the case.

Linnaeus apparently did not believe his bible as it relates to creation either.

He doesn't believe what YE creationists have interpreted it to mean. But remember, he lived before YE creationism was invented.

Again, don't call or insist people are something they have not professed to be.

Just pointing out that most Christian accept the Apostle's Creed, which professes belief in the "holy catholic church." Do you think the Apostle's Creed is false?

God says:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. ... [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. ...

So God makes it explicit what was there in the beginning, and there was no male or female. Jesus is speaking of the beginning of humanity, not the beginning.

Soooooo weak...

He said it. I believe it. That's all there is.

Since you are such a big fan of K. Wise and feel he is the face of biblical creationism, can you find where he has specifically said he is a proponent of ex nihilo?

Don't know that he is. As I mentioned, most OE creationists, and some YE creationists have abandoned that obviously false doctrine.

(Science can't consider miracles) But scientists can. You see, science can't rule out miracles and has nothing whatever to say about them; it can't confirm or reject them.

No, that's wrong, too. As you see, science doesn't and can't deny miracles. In fact, it's highly unlikely, but parthenogenesis is possible, scientifically.

Is that why we see miracles so highly (NEVER) referenced in articles and scientific journals as it relates to creation?

Yep. Science is limited to the physical universe. So it can't address those things, even if scientists can.

Also parthenogenesis is in reference to plants!

You've been misled about that:

Parthenogenesis: When Animals Reproduce Without a Mate
Parthenogenesis: When Animals Reproduce Without a Mate

Nobody here is clear on what you support with how you argue everything... especially when nonsensical like suggesting science may have an explanation for how Jesus was born to a virgin, then reference a process specific to plants.

Just one more misconception you've been taught.

That's just comical, and sad...

I do think it would be better for you, if you argued about things you understand. Or at least did some checking up before doing this kind of thing.

Couldn't hurt.

 

[dcalling]

@The Barbarian @KomatiiteBIF

Just found this very interesting article
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

Two very interesting observations by scientists are:
1. "In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans."
2. "And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between."

The more actual scientific findings we have, the more clear the picture is