Looking for all the missing links

[MostlyLurking]

I have to ask. Did you watch that episode because you regularly watch the show or because you heard about the content and just had to?

I watched it so that I could gather tips for my application form to get adopted by the Duggars.

After all, who wouldn't want to tour the country on a bus with 20 kids of varied ages, some still in diapers? [Believe me, you do NOT want to be sitting on a bus during a diaper change.]

(I forget where I first saw the link. But I think the Discovery Channel [???] had it removed from DailyMotion or wherever because it violated copyright fair use.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, G_d does sanction death, does he not?

God calls death our 'enemy'.

1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Right now, it's what we would call a 'necessary evil' -- but soon to be destroyed.

 

[good brother]

Well, G_d does sanction death, does he not? Do we not see death every day, every hour? Isn't the Torah steeped in death? What was the supposed flood of Noah if not a world of death?

God didn't sanction death. It was the result of man's sin. To say He sanctioned it would be like blaming your parents for punishing you for your disobedience.


In Christ, GB

 

[Tiberius]

God didn't sanction death. It was the result of man's sin. To say He sanctioned it would be like blaming your parents for punishing you for your disobedience.


In Christ, GB

Of course, one would also expect the punishment given by parents to fit the crime that the child committed. I can't imagine a situation in which God would find that killing people is the only choice available. But, even if such a situation did occur, why not make it painless? God could have simply blinked all the people he didn't like out of existence instantly and painlessly, but instead he chose to drown them - a particularly terrifying way to go (and I speak from experience, as I almost drowned once). If he'd blinked them out, there would have been no need for the flood, for Noah to build the ark, to arrange migrations for all the animals from the other side of the world (which would surely have required many miracles to accomplish - how else is a koala going to make it from Australia to the Middle East?)

 

[AV1611VET]

God could have simply blinked all the people he didn't like out of existence instantly and painlessly, but instead he chose to drown them -

Had God blinked them out of existence instantly, they would not have had time to repent; but by doing it the way He did, they had plenty of time to make what is called a deathbed conversion and go to Paradise.

Matthew 14:29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

 

[Davian]

Of course, one would also expect the punishment given by parents to fit the crime that the child committed. I can't imagine a situation in which God would find that killing people is the only choice available. But, even if such a situation did occur, why not make it painless? God could have simply blinked all the people he didn't like out of existence instantly and painlessly, but instead he chose to drown them - a particularly terrifying way to go (and I speak from experience, as I almost drowned once). If he'd blinked them out, there would have been no need for the flood, for Noah to build the ark, to arrange migrations for all the animals from the other side of the world (which would surely have required many miracles to accomplish - how else is a koala going to make it from Australia to the Middle East?)

Had God blinked them out of existence instantly, they would not have had time to repent; but by doing it the way He did, they had plenty of time to make what is called a deathbed conversion and go to Paradise.

Matthew 14:29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

I see that the Fisher-Price Little People Noah's Ark Playset is still available, but still, it does not include the "Drowning Family Figures" as I thought they might. Perhaps the little babies are too hard to render in plastic , and might be a choking hazard.

No matter. They wouldn't have had very pleasant expressions on their faces, and it might've ruined the toy.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see that the Fisher-Price Little People Noah's Ark Playset is still available, but still, it does not include the "Drowning Family Figures" as I thought they might. Perhaps the little babies are too hard to render in plastic , and might be a choking hazard.

No matter. They wouldn't have had very pleasant expressions on their faces, and it might've ruined the toy.

Perhaps Herman Fisher and Irving Price are scientists?

In any event, that looks more like a Veg-o-matic, than the Ark.

 

[Davian]

Perhaps Herman Fisher and Irving Price are scientists?

Would that make a difference? They didn't come up with the story.

In any event, that looks more like a Veg-o-matic, than the Ark.

So what did the ark look like? They got the number of windows wrong, didn't they?

 

[razeontherock]

Why did God offset the moon's center of mass?

I dunno, why did the chicken cross the road?

 

[Davian]

Did you take time during your break to study the science behind the theory of evolution to determine this "fact"?

Yes, better to go with something that is all gaps.

And goddidit has so much more explanatory power. Why did God offset the moon's center of mass?

If theists claim to know, but are repeatedly unable to demonstrate that they actually do, they should not expect me to join their ranks.

I dunno, why did the chicken cross the road?

That makes as much sense as 'goddidit'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would that make a difference?

Yes.

If they were scientists, then this mindset would apply:

Fedex - even for MBA graduates - YouTube

They didn't come up with the story.

They didn't have to; all they had to do is interpret it like a scientist, and ... well ... to be honest, I'm surprised they got Noah's name right.

So what did the ark look like?

Gopher wood.

They got the number of windows wrong, didn't they?

Who is 'they'? Fisher-Price?

Yes, Fisher-Price got the number of windows wrong; as I said, they were probably scientists.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dunno, why did the chicken cross the road?

Hey, bro!

 

[razeontherock]

Exactly my point. :rollseyes:

It's what gives life value!

Ya, that's what they said in the Crusades. I'm not impressed with your moral code

 

[Davian]

Yes.

If they were scientists, then this mindset would apply:

They didn't have to; all they had to do is interpret it like a scientist, and ... well ... to be honest, I'm surprised they got Noah's name right.

Gopher wood.

Who is 'they'? Fisher-Price?

Yes, Fisher-Price got the number of windows wrong; as I said, they were probably scientists.

And I asked what it looked like, and in response you tell me what it was supposedly made of... you are not an MBA yourself, are you?

My previous manager was a theist, an MBA, and a creationist. That was my first encounter with someone that said that they did not believe in evolution. I was glad to quit that job.

 

[Astridhere]

Yes, let's put the word "research" aside and go with "support" (seeing how that it is an extremely subjective term.)

As to "Any.... support that a creationist may present could not possibly be worse......", yes, it really COULD be worse than anything one could imagine.

I was born into a Young Earth Creationist family and church. What used to pass for "support" and "evidence" was just as bad then as it is now. Believe it or not, YECs still use the "salinization rate of the ocean" as proof that the earth is young! Yet, the same speakers at church conferences would tell us that uniformitarianism was all wrong because it assumed that the physical rates we observe today operated at the SAME rate in the past. I used to get in trouble for asking, "If we can't assume constant rates for anything, then how can you say that the rate at which the ocean becomes saltier can be used to extrapolate the age of the earth?"

I've never encountered a contradiction in the theory of evolution. But creationists accept contradictions in their arguments as the NORM!


[And yes, I am well aware that while rivers pour salts into the world's ocean, other processes REMOVE the salts from the ocean. But, then and now, most Young Earth Creationists have no idea that such processes exist. And so they continue to use silly rate-of-salt-additions-to-the-oceans argument.]

You know, since my post 560 the only responses I appear to get is wishy washy nonsense. Do you really expect me to bother with a quoted reply when you have not gone near addressing me appropriately? Do you know how to support your opinion, at all?.

Please stop trying to go down the garden path of evasion, for the sake of appearing to have something to say, when in fact, you are saying nothing of substance in refute to me at all.

I gave a plethora of examples to base my assertions on, and presented research that supports me in principle, and the best you can do is offer these insignificant generalities about salt, oceans and woffle.

If you feel you are up to it go back to post 560, quote it, and deal with it directly and with supportive research, as I have done. Why am I wrong?The research I have used is from your own evolutionary researchers. Deal with it!

You evos carry on ad nauseum that creationists are unable to defend themselves. When one, such as I, present their interpretation of the data and point out the misrepresentations you lot throw at us and demonstraate how the data is supportive of a creationist paradigm, the best you can do is come up with unrelated nonsense and no direct refute to me at all.

To begin with, defend your huiman/chimp genomic comparisons at least, which was just one of a plethora of points relating to misrepresentation that I have aimed directly at you evos. That should be a walk in the park for you and an opportunity to demonstrate you can defend the very basis of all that algorithmic magic that's out there. Can you, or can you not, do this ?????

If you are unable to defend your so called science with a direct refute to the substance of my post 560, then the following point stands....

Nothing any variation of creationist presents as support for their paradigm could possibly be worse than the misrepresentation and instability evolutionists have to offer.

Therefore in my opinion, the letter in post 1 is applicable!

 

[AV1611VET]

And I asked what it looked like, and in response you tell me what it was supposedly made of... you are not an MBA yourself, are you?

I wasn't there, Davian -- I can't tell you what it looked like.

Certainly not like a Veg-o-matic.

Does it matter what it looked like?

QV please:

Don't need a link.

The Ark was made of what the Bible calls 'gopher wood' -- which, of course, is nothing more than copper, mixed with trace elements, called "pitch" -- (probably carbon for hardness).

Keep in mind that Noah's predecessors were top-notch metallurgists.

Thus the Ark was a giant state-of-the Ark submarine, complete with periscope.

 

[Davian]

Of course, one would also expect the punishment given by parents to fit the crime that the child committed. I can't imagine a situation in which God would find that killing people is the only choice available. But, even if such a situation did occur, why not make it painless? God could have simply blinked all the people he didn't like out of existence instantly and painlessly, but instead he chose to drown them - a particularly terrifying way to go (and I speak from experience, as I almost drowned once). If he'd blinked them out, there would have been no need for the flood, for Noah to build the ark, to arrange migrations for all the animals from the other side of the world (which would surely have required many miracles to accomplish - how else is a koala going to make it from Australia to the Middle East?)

Noah may have used the last of the pterosaurs to fly them to where we find them today.

 

[Tiberius]

Noah may have used the last of the pterosaurs to fly them to where we find them today.

After which they were so worn out that they died from exhaustion, no doubt.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I see that the Fisher-Price Little People Noah's Ark Playset is still available, but still, it does not include the "Drowning Family Figures" as I thought they might. Perhaps the little babies are too hard to render in plastic , and might be a choking hazard.

No matter. They wouldn't have had very pleasant expressions on their faces, and it might've ruined the toy.

Good grief, Noah's Ark? Why on earth would anyone want a completely useless toy like that? At least we had Tracy Island over here, which is a hell of a lot more fun. If you're going to give kids fantasy figures to play with, you might as well give them good ones.

 

[Astridhere]

Humans cannot synthesise vitamin C, ascorbic acid.
Other animals can, and we are one of the few mammals that can't.
Evolution predicts that there should be a genetic remnant of the enzyme in humans, and guess what - there is:
Nishikimi et al, 1994

Many primate species are unable to synthesize vitamin C including ornagutan, gorilla, gibbon as well as guinea pig and bat; and some primates can like a lemur and galigo. This also appears to be an epigentic change and reversible not by selection, and hence basically means nothing at all, regardless of the ghosts you find.

So basically you are suggesting that your predictions can be hit and miss. If one comes to be, it 'supports evolution'. If one doesn't then it is hand waved away with some bizarre and non plausible scenario.eg Y chromosome, brain size increase tied to bipedalism, teleofish with GLO orthologues missing, pterv1 etc.



Do you know what a genetic remnant, or ghost as I call them, looks like? Let me tell you it does not look like anything at all. It is a set of numbers that an algorithm pumped out.

The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates

I think you mis-understand the buren of proof, as you are the one challenging the accepted scientific fact of evolution by natural selection then you have to provide evidence.

Actually I am responding to the thread topic and suggesting an interpretation of some data that you have yet to refute that suggests evolution is the sum value of misrepresentation used to support misrepresentation. No interpretation of the data that I offer could be worse than yours.

Just to note, there is nothing about evolution that isn't backed up by evidence.

That is a general comment and means nothing. You can offer many things and I have spoken to a few. Defend them and stop evading the issue. They are as good as any. You are simply unable to lodge a refute, would be my guess.

Birds before dinosaurs is an interesting concept, but I fail to see how that is what a creationist would expect.
If your evidence is correct, then dinosaurs evolved from birds.
It is still evolution!

The point being that bird footprints that appear to look identical to modern day birds of flight dated to 212 million years ago is fantastic news for creationists. Your dating methods place birds less than 200 million years from the devonian, the age of fishes. That is a biblical support. That's great and we are lucky to have found such a find. The chances of hollow bird bones surviving from that time are slim so these footprints are a great find, I reckon. Don't forget 212mya birds were thriving in my scenario and I can speculate that they predate the tetrapods. Flight is seen in flying fish that can glide for huge distances. It all makes sense to me.

It all fits. I do not have to evoke ridiculous and non plausible scenarios and all sorts of convolutions.

Tetrapods have been dated to 400mya and much earlier than predicted, and at the close of the devonian. Tetrapod footprints at that time is great because it is after the devonian that land creatures were created.

Again, it all fits. Just like you, I do not have to have all the answers.

If A. natans is a sea lion ancestor, it would still have to evolve to become a sea lion.

Sorry, the ploy of confusing adaptation of a sea lion to another variation of sea lion is proof of evolution. Well my friend, this is where evos use that magic wand and extrapolate in a huge leap of faith that a mouse deer can poof into a whale. It is a great imagination but imagination is all it is.

Indohyus might resemble a mouse deer, but it had a bone density pattern that is only seen in cetaceans.
That looks more like a rant to me.

You hit the nail on the head, indohyus resembles a mouse deer and the bone density is irrelevant unless you are looking to create your own special intermediates. So what I say is correct. Your researchers are not interested in looking to what any fossil resembles here today. They will ignore a plethora of similarities and zone in on some difference, desperate to find an intermediate. With DNA evos do the opposite.

It all fits nicely for me. The Y chromosome is no problem for me and neither are the bird foot prints, etc. Evos get lots of headaches trying to invent stories to make the surprises and anonolies fit. I am pleased I am a creationist.

Basically nothing I have to offer could be worse than the instability, flavour of the month and biased misrepresentation evos have to offer..