Lines of Evidence

[Gracchus]

Here is the problem.

When some respond out of fear and a need to protect a tightly held belief, that will be the priority and not much rational thinking will take place.

What he said!

 

[Split Rock]

The fossils are not the evidence of creation from the Creator, but are evidence of earlier living forms. All living forms show design. The amazing design is evidence of creation from the Creator.

The design is there, but what is the evidence that it is from "the Creator?" The design is by natural selection.

The fossils show evidence of great catastrophe that explains fossilization.

Some do... many do not. Most fossils are fragmentary. This means they were chewed up and scattered before they were fossilized. This is inconsistent with a catastrophic event quickly burying them.

It is still your own opinion with which you go on about mixtures of features regarding individual creatures with the features of their own kind. Any of the mammals are not with any reptile part.

Ever seen a platypus? It is a mammal with reptilian features (such as leathery eggs). There are also a whole slew of "mammal-like reptiles" in the fossil record. Can you guess why they care called that?

Humans and other creatures equally distant from lizards is evidence of organized grouping.

Can you give us a list of these "organized groupings?" We impose grouping on nature, but nature does not create groupings.

No, there are not transitional forms showing biological evolution.

Of course there are.
Horses: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
Whales: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
Mammal-like reptiles: http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/cynodontia/overview.html
Fishapods: Devonian Times - Front Page

The orderliness was showing before evolution was conjectured. Evolution did not first come up with seeing things that way.

True. However, evolution explains it. Creationism explains nothing.

Which are in the human category? Just F and onward. The gap shows in the very sequence you showed, no clear transition.

If there is no clear transition, then that is what we expect for a transitional.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I think they need to think through their own arguments.

For example, claiming that fossils are variations but not transitionals. That makes no sense. They are not mutually exclusive terms.

Let's take wolves and chihuahuas as our examples. Most would agree that the distant ancestor of the chihuahua most resembled what we would call a wolf. In between that wolf ancestor and modern chihuahuas there would have been intermediate generations that were neither fully wolf or fully chihuahua. How would stevew have described them? He would have described them as a variation of dog, and yet they would also be transitional.

Fred V B did what we have waited for every creationist to do, which is describe what a transitional would look like. He ended up perfectly described H. erectus, and then had to run away from those previous comments.

I hope they do think it through. It would be refreshing to see them take some bold steps and be a good example for our readers.

Thanks for making it clear.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

IMO, in most cases they are not beginners errors. More like, a requirement to deny evidence, which contradicts their beliefs. And, most are not beginners at denial.

Is that how it was for you too?

Biblicists tend to have a very tough time letting go, but once they understand that the evidence which relates to Evolution poses no threat to the essential dynamic of the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, they fly free as a bird.
At least that is how it is for me.
I found "force" frightened me off more, especially when it came from those who had lost their 'beliefs.'
It is wonderful to love both books.

 

[bhsmte]

Is that how it was for you too?

Biblicists tend to have a very tough time letting go, but once they understand that the evidence which relates to Evolution poses no threat to the essential dynamic of the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, they fly free as a bird.
At least that is how it is for me.
I found "force" frightened me more, especially when it came from those who had lost their 'beliefs.'
It is wonderful to love both books.

For me?

I was never a creationist, when I was a Christian, so I didn't have the issue of holding onto a fundamental belief like biblical creationism.

You are correct that force does not work, as most will just dig in further when forcefully presented with evidence that goes against their belief. Some, will dig in no matter how subtly the evidence is presented and it all depends on their psyche.

The thing is, more and more Christians agree with evolution every single day and this will continue, because there is a lot of catching up to do. What you are likely to not see, is a biblical creationist on these boards all of a sudden say; you know what, I get it now and I agree with evolution.

When it happens, it happens quietly and when it is their idea and they are ready.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

For me?

I was never a creationist, when I was a Christian, so I didn't have the issue of holding onto a fundamental belief like biblical creationism.

If not a creationist, then what ?

Yes the gentle change reminds me of when I witnessed a Jehovah's Witness finally understand the Trinity.

It was the same with C S Lewis and St. Peter, when they finally received light from our heavenly Father and were able to receive the truth about who Jesus is.
For Lewis, after hours of chats with Tolkein and then Dyson, it finally was time -- God's timing is perfect.
For Peter it was in response to a question from the Lord. Jesus' reply tells us so much -- flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but the Father.
Even St. Paul when God was ready made him a new man, in Paul's words though full of beliefs and religion before : '....when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace ....'

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What he said!

Is that how it was for you too?

 

[Gracchus]

Is that how it was for you too?

I was in the second grade and Sister Raymond Francis told us about "Original Sin", and how we were all punished for the sin of Adam. It immediately occurred to me how unfair that was. Then she told us that we were only forgiven because Jesus died on the cross. I thought that was just stupid. It just makes no sense at all.

Of course I kept my head down, my palms piously pressed, and my mouth shut. I already knew that there were people in the world who would make your life hell for disagreeing with such nonsense, or even kill you. I even became an acolyte, and put on a cassock and "served mass", and later I became a choir boy and sang the high mass on Sunday. And when I finally left home and joined the army I had them put "No Preference" on my dog tags where the religion was supposed to go, because we were not allowed to put "Atheist" or even "Agnostic".

The god I did not and do not believe in is the Judaeo-Christian god, and it was some time before i discovered other concepts of what a real god might be.

"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" -- Micah 6:8 KJV

Am I the only one who thinks that a rhetorical question with an obvious answer?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

A very enlightening response!
Though I did not have such a disturbing introduction to religion, I can certainly relate to it, for I encountered it at 11 (my grand mother being a devout Roman Catholic) -- but then I was blind to the truth which was revealed to me gradually and further on down the road and day by day.

I was in the second grade and Sister Raymond Francis told us about "Original Sin", and how we were all punished for the sin of Adam. It immediately occurred to me how unfair that was. Then she told us that we were only forgiven because Jesus died on the cross. I thought that was just stupid. It just makes no sense at all.

Of course I kept my head down, my palms piously pressed, and my mouth shut. I already knew that there were people in the world who would make your life hell for disagreeing with such nonsense, or even kill you. I even became an acolyte, and put on a cassock and "served mass", and later I became a choir boy and sang the high mass on Sunday. And when I finally left home and joined the army I had them put "No Preference" on my dog tags where the religion was supposed to go, because we were not allowed to put "Atheist" or even "Agnostic".

The god I did not and do not believe in is the Judaeo-Christian god, and it was some time before i discovered other concepts of what a real god might be.

"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" -- Micah 6:8 KJV

Am I the only one who thinks that a rhetorical question with an obvious answer?

 

[stevevw]

In your opinion and interpretation, what features would a fossil need in order to be transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?

It is my contention that no matter what features a fossil has, you will not accept it as being transitional. Am I right?

And its my contention that you are to quick to label variation with in the one species as transitional. Why should I or anyone accept fossils as transitionals based on a persons observations. There is no definite proof that they are transitionals so why should I just take someones interpretation. Especially when the people who are determining the status are in disagreement themselves about what is ape and what is human. Not just that there have been many cases where the reconstruction of fragmented fossils were made out to suit the transitionals they wanted only to be later found that their true shape was either completely ape or human. [FONT=&quot]Skull KNM–ER 1470 is an example.
[/FONT] http://www.trueorigin.org/skull1470.asp


If you have 5 skulls lined up with differing features. Some showing more apelike features and some humans features. But all these features are things that fall within humans and can even be found in the modern human. There have been finds that have shown variety within one species which covers several named species from what evolutionists have named in the past as transitional ape men. They have been to quick to label them as another species when it was just variety with the one species.

Now some scientists are saying that there is only one species of homo erectus, [FONT=&quot]archaic[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Homo sapiens[/FONT] including [FONT=&quot]Neanderthals should be classed as one species[/FONT]. [FONT=&quot]The differences between the various forms of archaic Homo sapiens relates, at least in part, to a combination of climatic, dietary, maturity and longevity-driven factors. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The fossil record reveals that the features possessed by the early hominids who lived in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Europe[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Asia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Africa[/FONT][FONT=&quot], have exactly the same sort of range as those we see in modern people.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]So why should I just take the word of someone who interprets a feature as transitional when there are so many factors that could mean it is just a natural variation with the one species. [/FONT]

 

[bhsmte]

If not a creationist, then what ?

When I was very young, I may have just assumed how the bible defined the creation of man to be correct, because I didn't have the knowledge or education to know any better.

By the time I took any science in school, biblical creation sort of went out the window.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

When I was very young, I may have just assumed how the bible defined the creation of man to be correct, because I didn't have the knowledge or education to know any better.

Borrowed faith?

By the time I took any science in school, biblical creation sort of went out the window.

You were a good learner. I never paid either any mind, though there was magic in the air -- still is.

So what happened?

 

[bhsmte]

Borrowed faith?

Nope, I would equate it to the same reason I believed in Santa for a short time.

You were a good learner. I never paid either any mind, though there was magic in the air -- still is.

So what happened?

What happened with what?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I'm a recovering KJO-YEC I got very poor marks for Grade 12 Biology (in 1982), but am very keen to learn all I can about these lines of evidence for E V O L U T I O N Please choose "one" and help me understand it? I known I could search out the answer, but then this wouldn't be a discussion - it'd be a boring old lecture. So, let's chat.

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/dRuxw-nZoJw


This is what a billion years is said to look like, or 4-5000 years, depending on your beliefs.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What happened with what?

When did you stop being a Christian?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Check out this video on YouTube:

< cannot watch videos >


This is what a billion years is said to look like, or 4-5000 years, depending on your beliefs.

Please explain what's on the video? I don't have any audio or video functionality.

 

[bhsmte]

When did you stop being a Christian?

Didn't I go through all of that with you once before?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Didn't I go through all of that with you once before?

Maybe. I was kinda hoping you'd tell us how you got from not-creationist-Christian to Santa/God and maybe creationist, to not creationist and basic school science to Christian?

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe. I was kinda hoping you'd tell us how you got from not-creationist-Christian to Santa/God and maybe creationist, to not creationist and basic school science to Christian?

I thought I was clear.

I stated, when I was old enough to learn science in school, it became clear, biblical creationism was false. I would imagine, this happens to a lot of folks.

I was comparing when I was very young, I simply thought the story of creation was correct, the same way I assumed the story about Santa was true, because I didn't know any better. I also believed the tooth fairy was real for a while.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I thought I was clear.

I stated, when I was old enough to learn science in school, it became clear, biblical creationism was false. I would imagine, this happens to a lot of folks.

I was comparing when I was very young, I simply thought the story of creation was correct, the same way I assumed the story about Santa was true, because I didn't know any better. I also believed the tooth fairy was real for a while.

Hope that makes sense.

Clear? Makes sense?
I am trying to understand how you went from:

'… deny evidence, which contradicts their beliefs.…'

'…some respond out of fear and a need to protect a tightly held belief, that will be the priority and not much rational thinking will take place.…'

' …I was never a creationist, when I was a Christian, so I didn't have the issue of holding onto a fundamental belief like biblical creationism.…'

'…When I was very young, I may have just assumed how the bible defined the creation of man to be correct, because I didn't have the knowledge or education to know any better.

By the time I took any science in school, biblical creation sort of went out the window.'

So, when exactly was it that you became a Christian?