Lines of Evidence

[AV1611VET]

-- and leave us science types to do what we enjoy doing.

And what would that be?

Attempting to render every jot & tittle of the Bible sterile?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

And what would that be?

Attempting to render every jot & tittle of the Bible sterile?

In this thread, I'm exploring the evidence for Evolution - and you?

You'll find many who actually have a high-view of Scripture, but obviously not all.

So, you've got nothing. Bye-bye.

 

[AV1611VET]

In this thread, I'm exploring the evidence for Evolution - and you?

This is about the only type of place you'll find it -- in writing.

Try exploring out in the field, where the real evidence should be.

For the record, I've already shown in this thread (I think), that the evidence for evolution is really an fps movie for instant creation.

You'll find many who actually have a high-view of Scripture, but obviously not all.

No argument there.

So, you've got nothing.

That is correct.

The technical term is "nihilo" -- and until you guys understand it properly, you'll not appreciate those who can use "nothing" as an effective tool in explaining the creation week.

In other words, I've got nothing -- and it's too bad you don't.

(Unless, of course, you do; but I haven't seen you use it.)

Bye-bye.

Don't go away mad.

 

[AV1611VET]

how could anyone ever do that?

It's called "science".

Here's one of my favorite examples:

Q: The Bible calls it a "child in the womb" and a pregnant mother a woman "with child." Science calls it a "fetus". Are "child" and "fetus" the same thing?

Just a YES or NO will do. Anything beyond that is an attempt at trying to muddy the waters so that we common folk won't understand.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I've got nothing

 

[TLK Valentine]

I see you've met AV... and you've learned the proper way to deal with him.

I like you; you're a quick learner.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I see you've met AV... and you've learned the proper way to deal with him.

I like you; you're a quick learner.

A pity, I thought AV was about to unpack something about FOSSILS

 

[TLK Valentine]

A pity, I thought AV was about to unpack something about FOSSILS

Not likely.

But enough about AV -- what's next?

 

[MissRowy]

It's called "science".

Here's one of my favorite examples:

Q: The Bible calls it a "child in the womb" and a pregnant mother a woman "with child." Science calls it a "fetus". Are "child" and "fetus" the same thing?

Just a YES or NO will do. Anything beyond that is an attempt at trying to muddy the waters so that we common folk won't understand.

Here is the answer right here AV...
A fetus is an embryo which has attached to the wall of the uterus, has developed a placenta which is a nourishment and oxygen exchanger from the mother, but separate blood systems to be individual. The blood of the mother and the fetus never mingles, and there is always a membrane system between the two through which nourishment and oxygen passes. The fetus and the mother normally have different blood types Like type A with one and type B with the other.
The rh factor can be completely opposite. Mixing of the bloods would be fatal.

A fetus does not breath or eat and is within the mother and dependent upon her for oxygen and nourishment.

A baby is a birthed living creature which has been born into the environment and detached from the support systems of the mother. It must breath on it's own for oxygen, and consume foods to digest them for independent nourishment.

So therefore a child and fetus are NOT the same thing

 

[Kylie]

Here is the answer right here AV...
A fetus is an embryo which has attached to the wall of the uterus, has developed a placenta which is a nourishment and oxygen exchanger from the mother, but separate blood systems to be individual. The blood of the mother and the fetus never mingles, and there is always a membrane system between the two through which nourishment and oxygen passes. The fetus and the mother normally have different blood types Like type A with one and type B with the other.
The rh factor can be completely opposite. Mixing of the bloods would be fatal.

A fetus does not breath or eat and is within the mother and dependent upon her for oxygen and nourishment.

A baby is a birthed living creature which has been born into the environment and detached from the support systems of the mother. It must breath on it's own for oxygen, and consume foods to digest them for independent nourishment.

So therefore a child and fetus are NOT the same thing

However, some people have a great capacity to ignore facts...

 

[MissRowy]

Unfortunately yes....but lets see what happens

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Not likely.

But enough about AV -- what's next?

Since my opening post, where I presented the "Lines of Evidence" diagram -- we've had input on the following:

Post 5: A link to Evolution 101 @ Berkley
Post 6: '....So, if we see a piece of ERV DNA in human genes, and we see the same piece of ERV DNA in the genes of other apes, we can tell that we once had a common ancestor. We do see that, so this is an argument for evolution.'
Post 7: A link to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. @ Talk Origins
Post 10: '....the best piece of evidence: the total convergence of different, independent, lines of evidence.'
Post 11: '....Then the experiment was to go out and look for it.

And the experiment was successful, when they discovered Tiktaalik.

When a theory makes predictions that are later confirmed, this gives us greater confidence that the theory is correct. These are crucial tests of a theory.'
Post 12: '....All of the vestigial features are consistent with the proposed evolutionary history of that species.'
Post 20: '...."Evolution is not just a theory, it is a triumphant theory!" Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home '
Post 24: '....According to Natural Selection, it's pressures from the environment which guide a species' evolution. Therefore, if two members of the same species are forced to live in different environments, they would evolve along different paths.... a fork in the road, as it were

Eventually, the paths would diverge so far from one another that members of one group would not be able to breed with members of the other -- which is more or less the sign of a separate species... that point would be the "speciation event." ....'
Post 36: '....'Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species. ....' Evolution 101: Speciation ....'
Post 37: '....Now, before someone says "But they're still flies! Call me when they turn into dogs or cats!" the point is that they're still the same genus, just different species. We'd have to go a lot further back to see where they split from one genus to another... and further still to see.... well, you get the idea.'
Post 38: 'I choose FOSSIL RECORD, and I contend that the fossil record points to creationism. If you lined photographs of all the fossils in existence side by side, they would make an fps show for "sudden appearance."
Post 41: A link out to Biologos : Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum
Post 47: '....I found something pretty good to read on Biologos, which explains the difference between "species" and "kind"....' : From the Archives: Speciation and Macroevolution | The BioLogos Forum
Post 59: '....I'm hoping to write about this, but I think that if earnest seekers are looking for a good read -- I'd highly recommend Karl Giberson's little book : SAVING DARWIN
Post 69: '....I thought AV was about to unpack something about FOSSILS'

I've always been impressed by Carl Sagan's bold statements about fossils:

'....The Darwinian concept of evolution and natural selection is profoundly verified, not just by the fossil record, not just by the clear experience of artificial selection, but by the record in the nucleic acids, which is obtained by DNA sequencing, in which we can see the similarities and differences of organisms, and trace their evolutionary past—their history.'

So, why don't we have a look at the 'Fossil Record' ?

Actually I came across a sub-division on the subject, whilst reading at BERKLEY : LINES OF EVIDENCE and the first topic up is entitled: Fossil Evidence

There have always been two things that frustrate me about the fossil record, and in particular when it comes to the matter of human evolution.
What frustrates me about the age of things (is the challenges from Young Earth Creationists about the dating methods), and the matter of gaps in the fossil record.

 

[AV1611VET]

The simple minded common folk can take a hike,

Fair enough.

Science can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

So therefore a child and fetus are NOT the same thing

Suit yourself.

The Bible says otherwise, and I go with what the Bible says.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, some people have a great capacity to ignore facts...

Like John the [fundamental independent] Baptist leaping in his mother's womb when she heard the salutation of Mary?

Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm betting nothing will happen, it will either be ignored or given a completely nonsensical answer.

I have a feeling every answer is "nonsensical" to you.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Not likely.

But enough about AV -- what's next?

A shorter reply: (my previous)

How about the Fossil Record, as it applies to human fossils* -- as well as little bit about how the age of human fossils are established?

---
* http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils
http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=c8
http://www.becominghuman.org/
http://www.becominghuman.org/node/interactive-documentary

 

[SkyWriting]

Science can only see as far as the next time you perform an experiment and document the results for yourself. It can see forward, not back.

Yes, the experiments we can try grows daily. Looking forward.

The joys and frustrations of all ar-
archaeological study-perhaps all
historical inquiry-come into par-
ticularly sharp relief at Stonehenge.
Even to the most casual observer,
the monument is deeply significant.
Those vast stones, standing in con-
centric rings in the middle of a basin
on Salisbury Plain, carefully placed
by Who-knows-Who thousands of
years ago, must mean something. But
nobody can tell us what. Not exactly.
The clues that remain will always
prove insufficient to our curiosity.
Each archaeological advance yields
more questions, and more theories
to be tested. Our ignorance shrinks
by fractions. What we know is always
dwarfed by what we can never know.
But it’s just a theory. We can’t
know, definitively. We can only have
better-informed questions.

Smithsonian magazine, Sept. 2014 pg,34

 

[SkyWriting]

So therefore a child and fetus are NOT the same thing

"Fetus" is Latin for "Small Child".

 

[AV1611VET]

"Fetus" is Latin for "Small Child".

It's funny how scientists started speaking this Latin, right around the time abortion became a hot topic.

Now the immoral public prefers the Latin to the English.

I wonder why that is, eh?