Theistic Evolutionists - Interpretation versus Human Error

[DogmaHunter]

But the 20+ thousand handwritten copies all seem to have used the same source material, giving support to the idea that there have been no errors or alterations since originally penned.

If you could show a progression of changes or something, you'd have a case against inerrancy.
So the evidence all boils down to accurate copies.

So if a story is succesfully copied through handwriting a couple thousand times over, that's somehow evidence that the story is accurate?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Bible takes great pains to point out that every type of life was created distinct. Not just man. Since the same word for life, commonly but incorrectly interpreted as soul is also applied to the animals, we can assume the process was similar for them.

What is distinct is the knowledge one had over all others. This is the image that prevails, not any physical form or metaphysical soul.

But I agree had the Bible intended to imply man evolved from animals, it would have said so, not portrayed him as an independent creation.

And in your opinion, it absolutely out of the question that the bible is simply wrong about the origins of species? Or perhaps better put: that your particular understanding of these stories is incorrect?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And in your opinion, it absolutely out of the question that the bible is simply wrong about the origins of species? Or perhaps better put: that your particular understanding of these stories is incorrect?

No, IMO it is absolutely out of the question that one species evolves into another. It's just not what we see in reality.

Once again.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian mates with African is new variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the species. Neither the Asian nor the African "evolve" into the Afro-Asian. The Asian stays Asian, the African stays African and a new variation (Afro-Asian) suddenly appears in the record.

Exactly as observed in the fossil record where every single type of creature remains the same across countless eons, until suddenly a new variation is seen in the record.

I just understand you can't tell what mated with what from a pile of bones and so you get confused as to how that new variation could have occurred and start inserting missing "common ancestors." And then top it off by incorrectly labeling that new variation as a separate species.

As those who study evolution noted:

"John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) finding common ground with Koonin notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species."

Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013) pushes the envelope further arguing that “Our knowledge of molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.”

So you take away all the die-hard fanaticism out of the evolutionary PR and you are left with the facts that we simply can't rule out independent origins and a ancestry of mosaicism that does not point to one species.... taken and modified into a new species....

And hence the tree of life is withering, being replaced by the radiation scheme.

“The genomic revolution [has]… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life,“ argues Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in his book The Logic of Chance.

However, the revision has the same problems as Darwin’s tree – no original ancestor and no transitional links. Because there were no transitional links, merely new variation of the same species through mating.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, IMO it is absolutely out of the question that one species evolves into another

You aren't aware that exactly that has been observed in the wild as well as the lab?

. It's just not what we see in reality.

Owkay. So you aren't aware that this has been observed.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian.

Where do asians come from?

African mates with African and produces ONLY African

Where do africans come from?

. Only when Asian mates with African is new variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the species.

Asian, african, afro-asian, caucasian,.... All these are the same species. It's called Homo Sapiens.

Neither the Asian nor the African "evolve" into the Afro-Asian. The Asian stays Asian, the African stays African and a new variation (Afro-Asian) suddenly appears in the record.

So what "species" where Adam and Eve and how did they produce africans, asians, afro-asians, caucasians, aboriginals,..... ?

In fact, how come we have more then 2 bloodtypes?

(ps: here's where you start imagining things again and make bare claims to "explain away" these facts that expose your obvious nonsense).

Exactly as observed in the fossil record where every single type of creature remains the same across countless eons, until suddenly a new variation is seen in the record.

I just understand you can't tell what mated with what from a pile of bones and so you get confused as to how that new variation could have occurred and start inserting missing "common ancestors." And then top it off by incorrectly labeling that new variation as a separate species.

lol....

High school biology, wasn't your cup of tea, was it?

As those who study evolution noted:

"John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) finding common ground with Koonin notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species."

Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013) pushes the envelope further arguing that “Our knowledge of molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.”

So you take away all the die-hard fanaticism out of the evolutionary PR and you are left with the facts that we simply can't rule out independent origins and a ancestry of mosaicism that does not point to one species.... taken and modified into a new species....

And hence the tree of life is withering, being replaced by the radiation scheme.

“The genomic revolution [has]… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life,“ argues Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in his book The Logic of Chance.

However, the revision has the same problems as Darwin’s tree – no original ancestor and no transitional links. Because there were no transitional links, merely new variation of the same species through mating.

Keep sticking your head in the ground.

 

[Jimmy D]

"John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) finding common ground with Koonin notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species."

Looks like there's a bit of editing going on there, have you got a link to the original quote?

(I doubt it, as it appears that you're plagiarizing from some creationist blog or other, but you never know).

 

[Jimmy D]

link

Well, bugger me!

A quote mine, who'd a thought it?

 

[Jimmy D]

View attachment 233123

link

Well, bugger me!

A quote mine, who'd a thought it?

I’ve just seen the “the tree of life has come upon hard times…” part of the quote on page 29 of the same book, the second half of the quote is on page 151!

Who knew “...[with]” could represent over 120 pages of text?!?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You aren't aware that exactly that has been observed in the wild as well as the lab?

Oh I am quite aware they incorrectly classify things as separate species.

Like finches who’s DNA showed no defining features to classify them as such. So you’ll excuse me I am sure from believing anything they say when they won’t even correct their obvious mistake with finches.

Or did you mean E. coli that remained E. coli?

Owkay. So you aren't aware that this has been observed.

Observed in your incorrect classification fantasies.

Where do asians come from?

From the new added genetic variance from mating that is two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation. Oh that’s right, you ignore that.

Where do africans come from?

See above.

Asian, african, afro-asian, caucasian,.... All these are the same species. It's called Homo Sapiens.

Hey, there may be hope for you yet, but I doubt it. It seems only with humans and dogs can you figure out the variances are the same species....

So what "species" where Adam and Eve and how did they produce africans, asians, afro-asians, caucasians, aboriginals,..... ?

The same species as always. From mating which is two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation at producing new genetic variation. Oh that’s right, I keep forgetting you ignore that.

In fact, how come we have more then 2 bloodtypes?

(ps: here's where you start imagining things again and make bare claims to "explain away" these facts that expose your obvious nonsense).

From mating which is two to three orders of magnitude greater at..... need we keep going over this?

Yes, I am aware you incorrectly classify them as separate species, just like they do finches. They won’t correct that even with the DNA evidence they are the same, so I have no doubt they’ll stay with the false ones for fossils....

Speaking of sticking head in sand, how deep did you have to stick yours to keep ignoring that mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation at producing new genetic variance????

 

[Jimmy D]

“The genomic revolution [has]… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life,“ argues Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in his book The Logic of Chance.

I wonder what's missing from that quote? Let's see what Koonin's book actually says....

"The genomic revolution did more than simply allow credible reconstruction of the gene sets of ancestral life forms. Much more dramatically, it effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology (and arguably, of all biology), the Tree of Life,"

Link

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh I am quite aware they incorrectly classify things as separate species.

Like finches who’s DNA showed no defining features to classify them as such. So you’ll excuse me I am sure from believing anything they say when they won’t even correct their obvious mistake with finches.

Or did you mean E. coli that remained E. coli?


Observed in your incorrect classification fantasies.



From the new added genetic variance from mating that is two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation. Oh that’s right, you ignore that.



See above.


Hey, there may be hope for you yet, but I doubt it. It seems only with humans and dogs can you figure out the variances are the same species....


The same species as always. From mating which is two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation at producing new genetic variation. Oh that’s right, I keep forgetting you ignore that.




From mating which is two to three orders of magnitude greater at..... need we keep going over this?

Yes, I am aware you incorrectly classify them as separate species, just like they do finches. They won’t correct that even with the DNA evidence they are the same, so I have no doubt they’ll stay with the false ones for fossils....

Speaking of sticking head in sand, how deep did you have to stick yours to keep ignoring that mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation at producing new genetic variance????

No comment on your plagiarism or quote mining?

Par for the course I suppose, Creationism 101.

 

[Jimmy D]

The same species as always. From mating which is two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation at producing new genetic variation. Oh that’s right, I keep forgetting you ignore that.

Why do you feel the need to lie to promote your argument?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No comment on your plagiarism or quote mining?

Par for the course I suppose, Creationism 101.

The only comment I would have is why you suddenly feel citing a research paper is plagerism or quote mining when you do the same yourself.

When confronted with data contrary to your beliefs, attack the poster instead of responding to the post.

Evolutionary tactic 101.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why do you feel the need to lie to promote your argument?

Why do you feel the need to ignore what the Grant’s themselves found to be true?

Keep attacking the poster instead of the subject matter of the post.

It just shows everyone you have no valid argument in which to defend your stance.

I know that, but now everyone else does too.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why do you feel the need to ignore what the Grant’s themselves found to be true?

No one's ignored it. Stop lying.

Keep attacking the poster instead of the subject matter of the post.

Stop trolling then, you accused Loudmouth of ignoring it... he responded when you posted the same thing months ago. You accuse me of ignoring it, I responded to it on several occasions.

It just shows everyone you have no valid argument in which to defend your stance.

Stop lying.

Many people have addressed your "argument"

Psychosarah in June

Tas8831 in April

Dogmahunter in April

Tas8831 in March

To mention just a few.

If you insist on spamming the same faulty argument again and again for months on end do you really think people are going to bother with it, frankly it's embarrassing.

I know that, but now everyone else does too.

Ok then.

 

[Jimmy D]

The only comment I would have is why you suddenly feel citing a research paper is plagerism or quote mining when you do the same yourself.

Citing a research paper is not plagiarism, as long as you aren't passing it off as your own words of course and provide a link, as you well know.

I also believe that you know full well that quote mining isn't simply is simply citing a paper but is dishonestly misrepresenting what the original text says to twist it's meaning.

Are you really claiming that you aren't aware of that?

In case you are still confused I'm referring to this post...

As those who study evolution noted:

"John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) finding common ground with Koonin notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species."

Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013) pushes the envelope further arguing that “Our knowledge of molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.”

So you take away all the die-hard fanaticism out of the evolutionary PR and you are left with the facts that we simply can't rule out independent origins and a ancestry of mosaicism that does not point to one species.... taken and modified into a new species....

And hence the tree of life is withering, being replaced by the radiation scheme.

“The genomic revolution [has]… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life,“ argues Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in his book The Logic of Chance.

Which came from this creationist blog.

I explained above why they are quote mines, if you are going to pretend that they are honest representations of the original authors' views I don't know what to say to you.

I accept that you hadn't read the original texts from which those quotes were mined when you first plagiarized them, but you have now excuse now as I have pointed them out in the above post.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No one's ignored it. Stop lying.



Stop trolling then, you accused Loudmouth of ignoring it... he responded when you posted the same thing months ago. You accuse me of ignoring it, I responded to it on several occasions.



Stop lying.

Many people have addressed your "argument"

Psychosarah in June

Tas8831 in April

Dogmahunter in April

Tas8831 in March

To mention just a few.

If you insist on spamming the same faulty argument again and again for months on end do you really think people are going to bother with it, frankly it's embarrassing.



Ok then.

Embarrassing for you since my responses to their bare claims of being wrong without any evidence is sad.

I understand you can’t handle knowing mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new additive variation than mutation.

It burns you up that your mutation has been relegated to the sidelines, so you go on the attack routine.

And yet you all keep asking the same thing despite claiming you are not ignoring it. You keep asking how new information can arise if not from mutation.

So then I give you an actual study of animals in the wild, but since it shows your mutation is virtually useless, you go off the rocker and begin your standard evolutionist attack the poster routine because you got nothing in response but to ignore what you say you are not ignoring.

I’ll say it again for the last time then consider yourself ignored because you don’t know the meaning of the word respect, your a baby pretending to be a man.

Mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic additive variation than mutation. That’s how those races developed, that’s how all variation happens but .0001% of it. Grow up and accept the facts of life.

 

[Jimmy D]

Embarrassing for you since my responses to their bare claims of being wrong without any evidence is sad.

I understand you can’t handle knowing mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new additive variation than mutation.

It burns you up that your mutation has been relegated to the sidelines, so you go on the attack routine.

And yet you all keep asking the same thing despite claiming you are not ignoring it. You keep asking how new information can arise if not from mutation.

So then I give you an actual study of animals in the wild, but since it shows your mutation is virtually useless, you go off the rocker and begin your standard evolutionist attack the poster routine because you got nothing in response but to ignore what you say you are not ignoring.

I’ll say it again for the last time then consider yourself ignored because you don’t know the meaning of the word respect, your a baby pretending to be a man.

Mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic additive variation than mutation. That’s how those races developed, that’s how all variation happens but .0001% of it. Grow up and accept the facts of life.

Can I suggest that you calm down and re-read those responses I linked to above with an open mind.

It might help clear up your misconceptions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can I suggest that you calm down and re-read those responses I linked to above with an open mind.

It might help clear up your misconceptions.

Read my responses to them.

Ignored.......