Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[rjs330]

They, who are both devout Christians (and in some cases staunch evangelicals) and much more knowledgeable about the Bible than yourself, disagree with you. They disagree with you about what the Bible says about itself and they disagree with you about how the Bible works. My point is that you cannot claim any special authority for interpreting the Bible correctly based on your college degree.

But there are a lot of biblical scholars that disagree with them. I have no issue with calling them out on their "scholarly" takes. They are wrong. Plain and simple. If they reject the authority of scripture they are in error. Ive read some of their stuff and quite frankly are dumbfounded how such obviously intelligent men can be so,mislead by their own intelligence. There are many men just as intelligent who disagree with them. It figures that you would believe someone who disbelieves the authority and inerrancy of scripture.

You prove my point when I say these men are dangerous. Because their beliefs are being used to undermine what the bible clearly teaches. Twisting things to mean things the Bible does not say. It's obvious that some of them are not doing it with intent, but they are not looking at the unintended consequences which is ungodly people use them as an example on why they shouldn't believe the bible either. I have never heard anyone use someone like Geisler as an example why the bible is not to be believed.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

That's not the evidence. That's evidence of what was stated earlier. There's no direct ancestor evidence of the primates of today. In that regard your picture is great. Nor is there evidence of the gradual transformation of species which the Darwinian theory demands. Though Darwin is not the founder of the theory of evolution it still is required to further his hypothesis.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That's not the evidence. That's evidence of what was stated earlier. There's no direct ancestor evidence of the primates of today. In that regard your picture is great. Nor is there evidence of the gradual transformation of species which the Darwinian theory demands

LOL! Classic close my eyes and plug my ears defense. Just saying "That's not evidence" isn't going to make it go away.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

LOL! Classic close my eyes and plug my ears defense. Just saying "That's not evidence" isn't going to make it go away.

Inflammatory responses against Christians is not going to change the facts that apes didn't just appear on earth. Without evidence of a direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth , the one's lacking credibility are those that claim those creatures just appeared without direct ancestor fossils.
Experts in the field recognize that.

"They are here today; they have no yesterday." Donald Johansen, Paleontologist

 

[RickG]

That's not the evidence. That's evidence of what was stated earlier. There's no direct ancestor evidence of the primates of today. In that regard your picture is great. Nor is there evidence of the gradual transformation of species which the Darwinian theory demands. Though Darwin is not the founder of the theory of evolution it still is required to further his hypothesis.

If evolution were false would we not find fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

"It is not uncommon for evolutionary scientists like Wetherington (even those who teach at Christian universities) to be adamant about the evidence in favor of human evolution. Digging into the technical literature, however, we find a situation that’s starkly different from the one presented by Wetherington and many other evolutionary scientists who engage in public debates."

"A closer look at the literature shows that hominin fossils generally fall into one of two categories—ape-like species or human-like species (of the genus Homo)—and that there is a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the claims of many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors. In fact, scientists are quite sharply divided over who or what our human ancestors even were. Newly discovered fossils are often initially presented to the public with great enthusiasm and fanfare, but once cooler heads prevail, their status as human evolutionary ancestors is invariably called into question."
Has Science Shown That We Evolved from Ape-like Creatures?
by Casey Luskin

 

[Hieronymus]

If evolution were false would we not find fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata?

Why not?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Peer-Reviewed Paper in Medical Journal Challenges Evolutionary Science and Inaccurate Evolution-Education
Casey Luskin January 17, 2012
A new article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center, appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution. Titled "Dissecting Darwinism," the paper begins by recounting some of the arguments raised during the Texas State Board of Education debate that challenged chemical and biological evolution. Those challenges include:

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell

3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.

(Joseph A. Kuhn, "Dissecting Darwinism," Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).)
[More]

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I thought you were supposed to be the educated one

I ask questions when I don't understand what someone is talking about. I simply asked what experiment you were talking about since there are many of them.

Are you really so uninformed as to not be aware of experiments that have gone on for a century with the same goal; forcing observable evolution? Or are you simply being dishonest?

As explained to you by USIncognito, the experiments were not to force evolution. The Hermann Muller experiments were just to see how Xrays affected genes. He linked it for you, if you missed it. http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1927_Muller.php

This was a Nobel Prize winning experiment too. Do you know why it was important?

Lenski's work involves bacteria. Bacteria are the garbage eaters of the planet. They are designed specifically for that intent.

His work with bacteria demonstrated more evidence for evolution. Your "Design" idea has already lost in court.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Because it says its true, it must be true! Wait a minute......we just went in a circle.

Ever read the title of the thread in which you are posting? Who's the one lacking in intellectual honesty???

The claim we came from monkeys is incorrect. We share a common ancestor. So when you say "You may wish you came from monkeys" You're not only incorrect on what evolution claims, you're putting words in my mouth. You are not a mind reader KC.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Without evidence of a direct ancestors of all the major orders

Is this the classic "But the missing link!" argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

And one huge list of transitional fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Or maybe this is what you're looking for:

 

[RickG]

Why not?

Explain how fossils get distributed throughout the geologic strata as to represent how evolution would look without evolution. With no evolution we should find the same fossils in all layers of sedimentary strata. We don't.

 

[Hieronymus]

Explain how fossils get distributed throughout the geologic strata as to represent how evolution would look without evolution. With no evolution we should find the same fossils in all layers of sedimentary strata. We don't.

That's not how stratification works though.
So if there was creation and a flood, you would find what we find today too, you see.
It even explains it better because of the evidence for (relatively) rapid fossilization and stratification.

 

[sfs]

But there are a lot of biblical scholars that disagree with them. I have no issue with calling them out on their "scholarly" takes.

Irrelevant to my point.

I have never heard anyone use someone like Geisler as an example why the bible is not to be believed.

Well, you've heard it now. If I were persuaded by people like Geisler that that was how I had to read the Bible, I would dismiss the Bible as nonsense immediately. (Also, Geisler is a theologian, not a Bible scholar.)

 

[RickG]

That's not how stratification works though.
So if there was creation and a flood, you would find what we find today too, you see.
It even explains it better because of the evidence for (relatively) rapid fossilization and stratification.

You have no idea how stratification works. None of the strata in the geologic column is from a flood, learn how rocks are formed, it is call the Petrology.

 

[Hieronymus]

You have no idea how stratification works.

Yes i have an idea.
There are various ways.

None of the strata in the geologic column is from a flood, learn how rocks are formed, it is call the Petrology.

Most strata are compressed dried mud / clay / water with 'earth'.

 

[RickG]

Yes i have an idea.
There are various ways.Most strata are compressed dried mud / clay / water with 'earth'.

No they are not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Explain how fossils get distributed throughout the geologic strata ...

Which came first? the fossils or the strata?

Isn't your question backwards and misleading?

 

[RickG]

Which came first? the fossils or the strata?

Both at the same time.

Isn't your question backwards and misleading?

How so?

 

[AV1611VET]

Both at the same time.

I don't believe that for one minute.

Do they date the fossils by the strata and the strata by the fossils?

Can't you have strata without fossils?

And if they both occur at the same time, what fossilized the fossils?

 

[RickG]

I don't believe that for one minute.

If fossils and strata did not get there at the same time then how did they get together.

Do they date the fossils by the strata and the strata by the fossils?

Fossils are dated by the strata in which they are contained. That is an absolute date.

Some fossils, that is "index fossils" are found on in specific layers of strata. Thus, by recognizing an index fossil (not just any fossil), you have a "relative" idea of the age of the strata. Therefore, a date spanning all the strata the index fossil is contained. That is a "relative date " as it designates a relative range of time.

Do you understand the difference "Kent Hovind".

[Can't you have strata without fossils?

Yes.

And if they both occur at the same time, what fossilized the fossils?

One of the formations of strata in my neck of the woods is the Conasauga Shall. It is of Cambrian age, i.e., 541 to 485.4 ma, thus a period of 55.6 ma. You seem to have the idea that a single layer of strata suddenly forms, that is not so. It forms over long periods of time.