proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

To be out of place we would need to find it much older, placing it before any possible ancestor evolved such features.

by this criteria we can push it back by even 40-50 my. its like pushing monkeys to the dino age.

 

[pitabread]

by this criteria we can push it back by even 40-50 my. its like pushing monkeys to the dino age.

That's not even remotely close to the same thing.

 

[pitabread]

no it will not be an issue for evolution. as i showed with the tetrapod tracks- its predate its suppose ancestor by about 15-20 my. and even in this case they doesnt say that evolution is false. they just claiming for more missing fossils or convergent evolution (tetrapod evolved twice). so again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong place should be evidence against it.

I'm still not sure why you think (relatively speaking) minor changes to timelines for evolution of specific taxa would necessarily be a problem for evolution.

First, as I already pointed out it's possible due to the branching nature of evolution to have morphological intermediates exist at the same time as their subsequent transitions. There is no requirement that morphological intermediaries go immediately extinct.

Second of all, when it comes to re-constructing evolutionary time-frames, like any scientific model this stuff is a best estimate. In other words, evolutionary time lines are not expected to be 100% precise. Anyone who thinks so just doesn't understand the fact that science is always working with a margin of error and is subject to revision.

Finding tetrapod tracks about 15My earlier or so isn't a big deviation to evolutionary timelines. Especially when we're taking about the origin of tetrapods which occurred within a timeframe of about 400Mya to 370Mya to begin with. If we found tetrapod tracks occurring hundreds of million years prior, that might be an issue.

Again, you're pointing to what amount to relatively minor deviations then expecting that to overturn the entire theory of evolution. That's not how it works.

 

[Aman777]

God is under the legal system.... good to know.

That's twisting the truth. The legal system AGREES with God because they MUST judge between good and evil and it is unfair to try the innocent.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's twisting the truth. The legal system AGREES with God because they MUST judge between good and evil and it is unfair to try the innocent.

And yet God Himself has engaged in the wholesale killing of the innocent... He's wiped out entire cultures (and commanded his followers to do the same) down to the tiniest, most innocent child.

 

[Aman777]

Clearly you haven't actually read any of the passages before that one. You might want to go back and discover what man was actually "made" with, and what he took

You speak like someone who has never read the Bible. Adam was shaped, like the Master Potter molded the in the likeness of YHWH/Jesus. Adam was made to be brighter than the Noonday Sun and Adam shined with the same glory YHWH/Jesus had and he lived for billions of years with Jesus, knowing only good.

Until Adam sinned, he lived in a perfect body, like Christians will have in Heaven, for this corruption (flesh) must put on incorruption. 1Co 15:54 When we have put on incorruption, the full impact of what Jesus did for all of us, will shine like the Sun from ALL of God's children. I can hardly wait to shine. How bout you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You speak like someone who has never read the Bible. Adam was shaped, like the Master Potter molded the in the likeness of YHWH/Jesus. Adam was made to be brighter than the Noonday Sun and Adam shined with the same glory YHWH/Jesus had and he lived for billions of years with Jesus, knowing only good.

Until Adam sinned, he lived in a perfect body, like Christians will have in Heaven, for this corruption (flesh) must put on incorruption. 1Co 15:54 When we have put on incorruption, the full impact of what Jesus did for all of us, will shine like the Sun from ALL of God's children. I can hardly wait to shine. How bout you?

How about you answer the question: What was Adam punished for?

 

[Aman777]

You also cannot bring charges against toddlers. But they are still smart and have a rudimentary understanding of right and wrong.

Amen, but they are not intelligent enough, yet, to really understand the difference between good and evil, and to bear the consequences. So, they are Juveniles. IF Godless evolution were true and mindless nature evolved our superior intelligence, we would be born knowing even more than the all knowing Evols who believe in the false religion of the ToE.

 

[Aman777]

And yet God Himself has engaged in the wholesale killing of the innocent... He's wiped out entire cultures (and commanded his followers to do the same) down to the tiniest, most innocent child.

False, since all humans will leave this earth and return to our Creator. The only way for God to kill people is to separate Himself from them, forever...and He gives us a free decision to accept or reject Him. Unbelievers have rejected God's desire that they believe in Jesus, so they remain dead and subject to the darkness they have freely chosen for themselves, alone with self, for Eternity.

 

[Aman777]

How about you answer the question: What was Adam punished for?

Sexual sin, since his desire for the fallen Eve caused him to want to be like her, in the flesh, and fulfill his desire for her. This caused death to come upon all of mankind, until the end of the present 6th Day. 1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

[rjs330]

False, since all humans will leave this earth and return to our Creator. The only way for God to kill people is to separate Himself from them, forever...and He gives us a free decision to accept or reject Him. Unbelievers have rejected God's desire that they believe in Jesus, so they remain dead and subject to the darkness they have freely chosen for themselves, alone with self, for Eternity.

An even bigger misunderstanding is the calling of people as innocent. There are no innocent people. For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The wages of sun are death. Our own righteousness is as filthy rags. We are born from the womb as sinners and there is none righteous no not one. So his argument is invalid.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Amen, but they are not intelligent enough, yet, to really understand the difference between good and evil, and to bear the consequences. So, they are Juveniles. IF Godless evolution were true and mindless nature evolved our superior intelligence, we would be born knowing even more than the all knowing Evols who believe in the false religion of the ToE.

Explain this, please?

 

[rjs330]

This is where a deeper understanding is needed of both biological evolution and what "transitional fossils" entail.

Evolution is NOT a strictly linear, ladder-like process. This is something which can be misconstrued due to the way diagrams of evolutionary progression are often presented. For example, that whale diagram depicts a very linear progression, but the reality isn't likely that linear at all.

The thing to remember is that evolution tends to be a branching process, whereby populations of organisms split and diverge in various paths. And the level of morphological change between different populations can vary wildly depending on specific circumstances of those individual populations.

The result is that it's possible to have a species which has transitionary features of its ancestors existing at the same time as other species that may have more morphological divergence. This is whereby transitional fossils are defined by features that link two or more taxa. It doesn't necessarily have to be a direct ancestor, and I imagine in most if not all cases, it probably isn't a direct ancestor. But rather transitional fossils are representative of evolutionary transitions based strictly on morphological features. Yet some of those transitional species may have continued to exist even well after the evolution of said morphology. After all, there is nothing requiring a transitional species suddenly go extinct if its population splits and branches off into something else.

Thus, finding an "out of order" whale fossil isn't the big issue you make it out to be when we're still within the time frame when whale evolution is thought to have occurred. If we found more modern whale fossils much earlier, by tens or hundreds of millions of years, that would be a much bigger issue.

You can't show that any of that actually happened. You have no observation of it ever happening and you can not that it or reproduce it. It's all assumption.

 

[tas8831]

Forum dude. Stop pretending.

Not publishing here.

This is just your lame excuse to mock someone (ad hominem attack) to draw attention from the poster original point. You are creating a red herring about copying and it seems to work as the uneducated quickly "agree" not recognizing your intent.

Speaking of pretending...


How does one justify dishonest plagiarism/forum rules breaking to try to make people think that they are smarter and better informed than they actually are?


"Not publishing here. "


So, since this is not a publication (it is almost certainly going to get more public exposure than anything a supposed adjunct professor would publish), it is OK to present someone else's work as your own?

Such ethical relativism.

I do note with some laughter that once the plagiarism was exposed, the phony 'expert' scampered off, never to expand on or explain how the supposed relevance of the hack Meyer and his creationist pals was a problem for evolution.

So many creationists accept the claims of other creationists at face value despite have limited or zero relevant knowledge themselves.

They SHOULD be ashamed and embarrassed, but they are creationists.

Pathetic pretenders.


I like this response to you on the apologetics forum (they see through you over there, too):

"The irony that the OP calls himself "uber genius" and complains about people pretending to be smart should be lost on no one."

 

[Aman777]

IF Godless evolution were true and mindless nature evolved our superior intelligence, we would be born knowing even more than the all knowing Evols who believe in the false religion of the ToE.

Explain this, please?

Evols believe that intelligence expands within the brains of apes over time within a population. This is UnTrue since we MUST continue to train/teach our babies what we have learned. The assumption that we learn over time is NOT because of magical evolution but instead, is due to better teaching methods.

 

[rjs330]

AV,

In #5789 you stated, 'God created the universe with age embedded into it'.

I asked for biblical evidence to support your claim. You cherry pick one verse from 2 Peter 3:5 (KJV) to support your claim.

That does this verse state in context?

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, ‘Where is this “coming” he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed 2 Peter 3:3-6 NIV).​

Verse 5 says nothing whatsoever about God's creation in the beginning having age embedded into it.

It deals with what will happen in the last days with scoffers following evil desires.

Verse 5 states clearly that in the last days people will deliberately forget that 'long ago' the heavens and the earth came into being by God's word.

Not a word here about the universe being created with age embedded into it. What is motivating you to reach your eisegetical conclusion - your reading into the text what is not there?

Oz

​

There are no specific scriptures that state, the earth was created with age imbedded, however the totality of the creation indicates such. Such as the stars and animals and humans were created as adults. The plants were created fully formed as well. So though there is no quote that says "the earth was created as appearing old" the description of creation shows that age was built in. The other thing is we do not know how long the earth hung in space before God started the creation of life on it. It could have been here for some time.

 

[TLK Valentine]

False, since all humans will leave this earth and return to our Creator.

Sounds like it doesn't matter who dies, or when?

The only way for God to kill people is to separate Himself from them, forever...and He gives us a free decision to accept or reject Him.

And if we "reject" Him, He will kill us.

Unbelievers have rejected God's desire that they believe in Jesus, so they remain dead and subject to the darkness they have freely chosen for themselves, alone with self, for Eternity.

Perhaps they prefer their idea of self to your idea of God?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Evols believe that intelligence expands within the brains of apes over time within a population. This is UnTrue since we MUST continue to train/teach our babies what we have learned.

Ah, here's your error -- you don't know the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

 

[rjs330]

Speaking of pretending...


How does one justify dishonest plagiarism/forum rules breaking to try to make people think that they are smarter and better informed than they actually are?


"Not publishing here. "


So, since this is not a publication (it is almost certainly going to get more public exposure than anything a supposed adjunct professor would publish), it is OK to present someone else's work as your own?

Such ethical relativism.

I do note with some laughter that once the plagiarism was exposed, the phony 'expert' scampered off, never to expand on or explain how the supposed relevance of the hack Meyer and his creationist pals was a problem for evolution.

So many creationists accept the claims of other creationists at face value despite have limited or zero relevant knowledge themselves.

They SHOULD be ashamed and embarrassed, but they are creationists.

Pathetic pretenders.


I like this response to you on the apologetics forum (they see through you over there, too):

"The irony that the OP calls himself "uber genius" and complains about people pretending to be smart should be lost on no one."

Are you still on this nonsense? Good grief the majority of evolutionists don't have any knowledge of evolution themselves except what they read about on evolutionary sites. And since creationism is not taught it schools like evolution there is not many places to go for information.

 

[pitabread]

You can't show that any of that actually happened. You have no observation of it ever happening and you can not that it or reproduce it. It's all assumption.

Blah blah blah, deny deny deny. Do you ever post anything else?