What proof would you need? (2)

[Astridhere]

Last time I checked, that is less than 3,500.

Nonsense as a reply does not and will never elevate your TOE past the criteria for storytelling. The more you find and research the worse and more inconsistent your theory gets, not better. eg Ardi and 150 years years or more of knucklewalking ancestry down the dunny.

Fence sitters are no better.

I have made my point and you are unable to refute me. Your replies are a testimony to it.

Perhaps when you make up your mind if you believe in God or not I will take you more seriously.

 

[Keachian]

Nonsense as a reply does not and will never elevate your TOE past the criteria for storytelling. The more you find and research the worse and more inconsistent your theory gets, not better. eg Ardi and 150 years years or more of knucklewalking ancestry down the dunny.

He was talking about creationism....

Fence sitters are no better.

I have made my point and you are unable to refute me. Your replies are a testimony to it.

Perhaps when you make up your mind if you believe in God or not I will take you more seriously.

We just give up, no seriously that's what we do, anything, anything at all is a better spending of time than refuting your points which, both shouldn't need refuting and we've already refuted.

 

[Astridhere]

You're right, it's impossible for sediment to be deposited, resuspended, and then deposited again.
You're right, paleontologists shouldn't ever say 'we think an organism should be here, but we can't find it! Lets keep looking'.

You're right, we shouldn't give descriptive names to structural features that are common in compressional tectonic regimes.

This term has been obsolete since plate tectonics became the dominant theory in crustal geology. Nothing like arguing against something you don't even understand.

It is, because there is no evidence for it, it rarely makes testable predictions, and when it has, they have turned out to be false. It is a theory that has been completely disproved time and time again since even the earliest days of geology.

Maybe when you lot stop changing dates of fossils tied to gelogical strata you may have cause to sprook. For the moment anything a creationist offers is not worse than anything you produce and try to flogg off as evidence for anything.

I have no problem with old earth. The bible spoke to staged creation in periods of time, hence evolutionists were not even the first to suggest it. Further to that you lot had to go invent another theory of punctuated equilibrium because what you found mostly was stasis...then poof ...another totally unrelated kind appears, that you need to turn into some intermediate by straw grabbing at anything.

Living-Fossils.com

The only evidence I can glean from evolutionary theory is that evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

In fact I reckon evolutionary theory was more believeable 20 years ago because recent fossil finds and genomic research have only served to complicate the picture more, cause confusion and present more questions while none are answered. The how, when, where and why of evolution are all still up for grabs for any headline seeking researcher with a new story to tell.

The main point is that you lot can no longer assert that all creationists are ignorant on the back of the flavour of the month you have to present as evidence and 150 years of flasifications and changes. It is a simple point, really, based on what has been observed within evolutionary history. That is exactly why I do not expect evolutionists to understand it.

 

[cupid dave]

Why did you just insert Neanderthal into that verse like it belongs? You can't just add words to the bible in order to make it say what you want. Come on, man.

Yes.
Bracketed comments and explanations are grammatically correct when separated from the text with parenthesis.


The Theistic Evolutionists believe that the genealogy refers to species, not individuals who would have lived an inordinately and unsubportedly excessive long life of 950 years in some cases.

The Theistic Evolution Bible believers say that a day is a thousand years to god, so he was actually referring to 950,000 years.

That length of time corresponds with the species we understand to be the 22 links to modern man.

 

[cupid dave]

Orogeny meet cupid dave, his interpretations will astound you and he is far more set in his ways than any creationist I have ever met, he thinks that he is reading the Bible literally.

?
You think I am not?
Give me your explanation of "in the beginning" if it does not refer to the big bang start of time we now calculate as 13.5 billion years ago.

 

[Astridhere]

He was talking about creationism....


We just give up, no seriously that's what we do, anything, anything at all is a better spending of time than refuting your points which, both shouldn't need refuting and we've already refuted.

You have not refuted my evidence at all.

Do I need to list all the changes, some of which were huge changes in thinking. I have spoken to sufficient examples. In fact it takes only one and the knuckle walking fiasco is sufficient to demonstrate my point.

To refute me you will have to refute the notion that evolutionary thinking changes like the wind. Re chimps humans, 1% difference supports evolution, 6% difference supports evolution, and 90% difference would still be made out to support evolution. Junk DNA was shoved in creationists faces and supports evolution and functional non coding dna also supports evolution. Gradual change was not found so poofing from one kind into another in a very short space of time also supports evolution.LUCA was undeniable proof of evolution and LUCAs death by HGT means nothing and does not falsify evolution Mendellian inheritance was the only form of inheritance and hence mutations explain evolution and now HGT and epigentics plays a vital role in evolution and still proves evolution.

Indeed previous theories should not be falsified. If they are based on a correct assumption the initial theory should remain solid and new information just clarify and enhance. Good theories that have some basis on a true assumption become outdated but are not falsified continually like evos ones are.

If you are denying there has been substantial changes in evolutionary thinking then all you are presenting is your most humble ignorance of your own science. Indeed you will have to deny much before we reach the end of this discussion.

 

[cupid dave]

Yes אָדָם means man... however I don't see how this relates to your unbiblical idea that Adam wasn't homo sapiens

Since god drove all men to extinct (gen 6) except Noah and the three racial stocks of Caucaians, negroids, and mongolians... the implication is that Neanderthals who disappeared exactly 40 thousand years ago were killed off by the flood of Modern homos.

 

[Astridhere]

?
You think I am not?
Give me your explanation of "in the beginning" if it does not refer to the big bang start of time we now calculate as 13.5 billion years ago.

I do not have to get into a convoluted locking of horns with you or anyone. Debating and facing off theory against theory is pointless.

Stop with the big bang. I have presented evidence of an earth centred universe. You simply will ignore it and carry on with your really bizarre reasonings of talking apes and half wits. I do not want to talk with you. You make absolutely no sense to me at all.

Again I say it does not matter if you or others do not like an earth centres universe and it does not matter if you do not like biblical crearionism. It does not matter if you can knit pick using your own theories to challenge the research. The point is all this goes on in big bang naturalism and everytheory there are many annomolies.

Your theories are even more non plausable than evolutionary ones. Why don't you defend your ape heads being able to talk and refute the points I made, instead of sidewinding onto dating? This is why you are impossible to have a conversation with. You just go on and on and on with pictures than prove nothing while being unable to defend one of your basic principles that ape heads had sophisticated language, talked to God and knew right from wrong. I am also not defending flat earthers because I have sailed around the world and did not fall off.

I have gone around in enough evolutionary circles so I am not going to play in whatever land you are in. I am not trying to turn anyone like you are. I am just demonstrating that those evos that believe creationists are ignorant and like to ridicule them are baseless and foolish themselves.

Biblical creationist theory can be no worse than evolutionary theory but I think both are better than yours.

ADDIT.. you have done it again. Please explain how ape heads talk and stop pasting up useless pictures that mean nothing.........

 

[cupid dave]

I do not have to get into a convoluted locking of horns with you or anyone. Debating and facing off theory against theory is pointless.

Stop with the big bang. I have presented evidence of an earth centred universe. You simply will ignore it and carry on with your really bizarre reasonings of talking apes and half wits. I do not want to talk with you. You make absolutely no sense to me at all.

Again I say it does not matter if you or others do not like an earth centres universe and it does not matter if you do not like biblical crearionism. It does not matter if you can knit pick using your own theories to challenge the research. The point is all this goes on in big bang naturalism and everytheory there are many annomolies.

Your theories are even more non plausable than evolutionary ones. Why don't you defend your ape heads being able to talk and refute the points I made, instead of sidewinding onto dating? This is why you are impossible to have a conversation with. You just go on and on and on with pictures than prove nothing while being unable to defend one of your basic principles that ape heads had sophisticated language, talked to God and knew right from wrong. I am also not defending flat earthers because I have sailed around the world and did not fall off.

I have gone around in enough evolutionary circles so I am not going to play in whatever land you are in. I am not trying to turn anyone like you are. I am just demonstrating that those evos that believe creationists are ignorant and like to ridicule them are baseless and foolish themselves.

Biblical creationist theory can be no worse than evolutionary theory but I think both are better than yours.

ADDIT.. you have done it again. Please explain how ape heads talk and stop pasting up useless pictures that mean nothing.........

Well you have every right to discard the Reality which is our father in this life and to ignore The Truth which is our savior, so I understand your position.

But the idea that your reading comprehension is so poor as to avoid the connection with the beginning and the big bang would certainly flunck your book report in a high school classroom.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The urge to post a picture of a poo with the dimensions 30x50x300 is almost overwhelming.

 

[Psudopod]

To refute me you will have to refute the notion that evolutionary thinking changes like the wind. Re chimps humans, 1% difference supports evolution, 6% difference supports evolution, and 90% difference would still be made out to support evolution. Junk DNA was shoved in creationists faces and supports evolution and functional non coding dna also supports evolution. Gradual change was not found so poofing from one kind into another in a very short space of time also supports evolution.LUCA was undeniable proof of evolution and LUCAs death by HGT means nothing and does not falsify evolution Mendellian inheritance was the only form of inheritance and hence mutations explain evolution and now HGT and epigentics plays a vital role in evolution and still proves evolution.

None of this changes evolution or our understanding of the diversity of life. As our understanding grows, the depth and detail of the picture you can paint grows. It's like archeology. You start out with a field, and find something in the mud. At first you can see it is pottery, then as you uncover it, you find it's a pot, then testing of the residue might reveal it was a cooking pot etc. At the beginning you didn't have enough information to know the whole picture, but the fact it was pottery has never changed, at no point was it every thought to be a spear or a helmet. What you are doing is the equivalent of claiming because someone speculated it might have been a chamber pot rather than a cooking pot before the organic residue was tested means the whole pot idea is falsified and the idea that it could be a spear is equally valid.

 

[Keachian]

Everyone has misconceptions and I'm tired of going round in circles with both of you...

Yes.
Bracketed comments and explanations are grammatically correct when separated from the text with parenthesis.

No they're not, you are reading your ideas into the text perverting both the bible and the scientific thought you claim to represent.

The Theistic Evolutionists believe that the genealogy refers to species, not individuals who would have lived an inordinately and unsubportedly excessive long life of 950 years in some cases.

Theistic evolutionists for the most part make no statements one way or another on endless genealogies.

The Theistic Evolution Bible believers say that a day is a thousand years to god, so he was actually referring to 950,000 years.

Where do we stop with this interpretation, did Joshua and the Israelites march around Jericho 7000 years?

That length of time corresponds with the species we understand to be the 22 links to modern man.

There are more than 22 links, whatever you mean by that, you fail to understand sorites paradox in your understanding of evolutionary theory.

?
You think I am not?
Give me your explanation of "in the beginning" if it does not refer to the big bang start of time we now calculate as 13.5 billion years ago.

I have given you my explanation before, again even though I am a Theistic Evolutionist, I accept that the creation account found in Genesis 1 is best placed 6000 years ago.

You have not refuted my evidence at all.

Haven't I? Well I think that's because your evidence seems to be smoke and mirrors, based entirely on an understanding of science and evolutionary theory.

Do I need to list all the changes, some of which were huge changes in thinking. I have spoken to sufficient examples. In fact it takes only one and the knuckle walking fiasco is sufficient to demonstrate my point.

I have said as have many other evolutionists both atheistic and theistic that change in theory does not invalidate it.

To refute me you will have to refute the notion that evolutionary thinking changes like the wind.

You are setting up to disprove evolutionary hypotheses rather than evolutionary theory. You bring up these ideas about chimps and humans as if the entirety of the theory rests on this, it does not, all you are doing is at most disproving a hypothesis, but you aren't even doing that! You barely understand the science you try to twaddle on about and you call us "wofflers"[sic] simply because you don't understand.

Re chimps humans, 1% difference supports evolution, 6% difference supports evolution, and 90% difference would still be made out to support evolution.

How do similarities in DNA prove creationism? If God created why would he make all his creatures similar?

Junk DNA was shoved in creationists faces and supports evolution and functional non coding dna also supports evolution.

Why wouldn't it? How does creationism deal with these phenomena?

Gradual change was not found so poofing from one kind into another in a very short space of time also supports evolution.

You seem to misunderstand punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, it doesn't need to be either or, it can quite happily be both and.

LUCA was undeniable proof of evolution and LUCAs death by HGT means nothing and does not falsify evolution Mendellian inheritance was the only form of inheritance and hence mutations explain evolution and now HGT and epigentics plays a vital role in evolution and still proves evolution.

I don't know enough to comment on this sorry.

Indeed previous theories should not be falsified. If they are based on a correct assumption the initial theory should remain solid and new information just clarify and enhance. Good theories that have some basis on a true assumption become outdated but are not falsified continually like evos ones are.

If you are denying there has been substantial changes in evolutionary thinking then all you are presenting is your most humble ignorance of your own science. Indeed you will have to deny much before we reach the end of this discussion.

Who is saying that? That would be a silly thing to say. We also make no assertions about our future understanding of any scientific field, unlike how it was in Newton's time, you know we don't actually use newtonian gravity theory that much anymore, it has been replaced for the most part by Einstein's theory of relativity. This change has been far more significant than anything seen in Biology over the past 150 years as far as I know.

Since god drove all men to extinct (gen 6) except Noah and the three racial stocks of Caucaians, negroids, and mongolians... the implication is that Neanderthals who disappeared exactly 40 thousand years ago were killed off by the flood of Modern homos.

You are so racist, so in contempt of God's writ and creation that I don't know where to begin, by your words you are misrepresenting science giving creationists more strawmen that they can burn. If you truly want to be a good witness to what theistic evolutionary and scientific thought says then please read up on these topics: (books I'd recommend are in brackets)

framework interpretation of Genesis (Allegorical Interpretations of Genesis - Augustine)
temple interpretation of Genesis 1 (The Lost world of Genesis One - Walton)
current cosmology (The Mind of God - Davies, The Fabric of the Cosmos - Greene)
evolutionary theology (Thank God for Evolution - Dowd)

 

[Keachian]

Well you have every right to discard the Reality which is our father in this life and to ignore The Truth which is our savior, so I understand your position.

But the idea that your reading comprehension is so poor as to avoid the connection with the beginning and the big bang would certainly flunck your book report in a high school classroom.

You love your panentheism don't you dave? You should really look into the ideas that you say you defend they are far far different from the ones you actually defend. If you want people to stop thinking you are completely bonkers I actually suggest you do this.

 

[Astridhere]

Well you have every right to discard the Reality which is our father in this life and to ignore The Truth which is our savior, so I understand your position.

But the idea that your reading comprehension is so poor as to avoid the connection with the beginning and the big bang would certainly flunck your book report in a high school classroom.

My dear, you and your faith need to learn the difference between inventing a story and supporting it.

You have a bunch of half wited apes named as biblical characters prior to Noah. Both I as a creationist as well as evolutionists do not attribute sophisticated speech to erectus let alone older creatures.

So defending your faith by the pasting up of stories means nothing. You actually need to come up with some hypothesis as to how half witted creatures were able to speak if that is what you believe.

One may wish to beleive in Alice in Woderland. To do so one must demonstrate how a rabbit can talk and why the Tin man is intelligent.

Likewise you have presented a story. You now have to defend the lynch pin of that story which is erectus and pre erectus were capable of sophisticated speech.

For example I and evos note the small neural canal of Turkana Boy as a demonstration of the inability of erectus/ergaster to have sophisticated speech. He wasn't smart enough.

I have challenged erectus and above as being able to have fire making ability because fire lighting is a complex task, which it is. This is called supporting ones theory and story.

Flat earthers have a theory. However it is totally non plausible and one has to deny all pictures of the earth as fraudulent and call astronauts liars etc.

Your theory is much the same. You come up with a story but have no support at all, not even non plausible ones. So I feel your theory is no more plausible than flat earthers.

I get frustrated with you because you never ever come up with any explanation or hypothesis, let alone support for your assertions. All you do is paste up pictures, tell everyone what you believe, but never back it up.

Your faith should give you the readies to back up these charts of yours. The first thing you need to speak to is how erectus and pre erectus, Adam, carried on a conversation with God, how the commandments were carved in stone by a non highly reasoning ape. Perhaps you deny the bible, I don't know.

However it appears you are suggesting all your pre Noah characters are biblical identities that carried on sophisticated language. Now you have to offer support for this claim somehow because both evolutionary theory and creationist theory disagrees with you. Hence I say your theory is worse than evos who at least come up with stories some of which are non plausible, but at least they have a go. You do not.

So again I say, unless you can come up with some goodies you have no support at all for your theory. It is no more credible than Alice in Wonderland. You are just spamming the thread and using the thread to preach rather than debate and present some support for your assertions.

 

[Huram Abi]

Yes.
Bracketed comments and explanations are grammatically correct when separated from the text with parenthesis.


The Theistic Evolutionists believe that the genealogy refers to species, not individuals who would have lived an inordinately and unsubportedly excessive long life of 950 years in some cases.

The Theistic Evolution Bible believers say that a day is a thousand years to god, so he was actually referring to 950,000 years.

That length of time corresponds with the species we understand to be the 22 links to modern man.

Thse are blatent lies. You don't speak for theistic evolutionists or paleontologists.

No one shares your understanding on these subjects.

 

[Huram Abi]

But the idea that your reading comprehension is so poor as to avoid the connection with the beginning and the big bang would certainly flunck your book report in a high school classroom.

That's funny coming from someone whose science report would be flunked in an 8th grade classroom.

Astrid may reject the science, but at least she knows some of it.

 

[Astridhere]

You are setting up to disprove evolutionary hypotheses rather than evolutionary theory. You bring up these ideas about chimps and humans as if the entirety of the theory rests on this, it does not, all you are doing is at most disproving a hypothesis, but you aren't even doing that! You barely understand the science you try to twaddle on about and you call us "wofflers"[sic] simply because you don't understand.


How do similarities in DNA prove creationism? If God created why would he make all his creatures similar?
God did not make all creatures similar at all. Evolutionary researchers have made all creatures similar as their intial straw grab by deciding on what to compare and what to ignore. If one ignores differences what you will get is similarity which to me is a fraudulent misrepresentation to the community.

Life is food chain. There must be similarities as we uptake nutrients from other life forms.

You evos must think that for creationism to be true life must be distincly different. Any similarity at all would be heralded as a link. This is ridiculous thinking. All life must contain some similarity in creation firstly simply because it is 'alive' and all life will require similar machinery. Secondly all life forms a food chain.

Indeed what makes evolutionary theory ridiculous is the same point really. Evos suggested life arose once. That is a silly assertion. Why only once?. Then with HGT evos now believe life arose multiple times and shared DNA. That is the story you invented to cover the DNA falsification found.

The problem for me with this is by evolutionists own theory to save themselves they have inadvertantly admitted that all life that arose multiple times must have been so similar that living cells were actually able to horizontally transfer genes.

Hence, you have no basis for common ancestry as all life that arises is going to be similar.

Why wouldn't it? How does creationism deal with these phenomena?
The lynchpin for evolutionists was why would God create useless DNA. A creationist prediction is that God would not make useless DNA. Indeed what is being found more and more with robust research is that non coding DNA is functional, which is now beginning to support creationist predictions without creationists having to resort to the reinvention of more stories and apply knee jerk changes to line up with new data with creationism, which is what have evos do on a continual basis.

You seem to misunderstand punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, it doesn't need to be either or, it can quite happily be both and.
In other words TOE has no predictive ability.

I see observation much more in line with creationist predictions and theory.

However, that is not the line I am running here. I am saying that basically evolutionary theory is such a mess of contradiction with a long history of falsification that any theory a biblical creationist proposes could not be worse than evolutionists knee jerk psuedo science.

Indeed the other lynch pin evos have asserted is that the chimp is more similar to mankind than any other species. However given life is a food chain and must have similarities, it is expected that one species will be more similar than another to mankind.

DNA is in stark contradiction to morphology where an orang shares much more morphology than a chimp with mankind having 28 unique characteristics while chimps only share 2. Hence here you have a stark contradiction and some researchers suggest morphology should be considered over DNA.

What do you look for in fossils? Morphology, as DNA is generally unobtainable.

I however, do not have a contradiction. If God created mankind and apes in separate creative events and used some similar designs that is fine and why reinvent another best design. God also used the same basic design in frog legs. You have to evoke homoplasy or whatever to cover an annommoly. I do not need to evoke anything other than the theory of creation itself and that God used best designs in various kinds.

Indeed the myth of 1% was unexpected and not predicted by evos. Now you are finding many differences and they are numerous. This is to such an extent that an evo researcher from the Max Plankt Insitute has said the differences are unquantifiable.

Researchers are finding that
on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing​

DNA,extra genes, altered connections

in gene networks, and the very structure of
chromosomes confound any quantification
of “humanness” versus “chimpness.” “There
isn’t one single way to express the genetic
distance between two complicated living​

organisms,”
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf

Let's not forget that the chimp genome is 10% larger, has a different surface composition and at least a 30% difference in the Y chromosome also.

Evolutionists seriously straw grab at mtdna, lifes powerhouse, and small similarity, despite huge differences because they are stuck on 'it all evolved' and would not see evidence for separate creations if they stumbled over it.

Futher to that, even before this article, I could plainly see that the Y chromosome difference is remarkable and comparable to a chicken with 310my of separation. That is how different the chimp/human Y chromosome is. Again evos need to evoke accelerated genomic regions despite what you have observed in relation to deleterious mutations. I do not need to evoke any ridiculous story. The Y chromosome is a good example of how God used similar designs but made each creation with distinct differenences, although they all form a food chain so must be biologically compatable for uptake of nutrients.

Creationist also predicts no intermediates. Indeed with the huge sexual dimorphism of erectus being gorilla like, meaning these were creatures that likely went about humping the females like a non human animal and were much more ape like that previously thought, with cranial vaults no larger in comparative shape than Rudolfenesis that has been downgraded to 525cc, with the Gona female erectus demonstrating a wider pelvis than a human female and a waddle, with the silliness of these primitive species being able to care for a fully dependent large brained neonate, with weak neck muscles and immature immune and digestive systems, as alleged by evo researchers, I'd say the entire basis for human descent from an ape is straw grabbing and nonsense and not in line with observation.


So for me, creationism is much more in line with observation that evolution. Hence my signature.

The overarching theory of TOE is supported by other theories and assertions that change like the wind. Indeed the only thing that has remained stable is the overarching theory 'it all evolved' while the foundation it is based on is often falsified and changed with new data. This history is hardly a robust support for an over arching theory ie TOE.

Again, however, what I seek most is to demonstrate that evolutionists have no basis to feel superior to creationists by offering 150 years of instability, change, clear falsifications and flavour of the month as evolutionary support.


So face off theory against theory as much as you like. You evolutionists seriously have no basis for feeling superior or ridiculing creationists.

 

[CabVet]

Again, however, what I seek most is to demonstrate that evolutionists have no basis to feel superior to creationists by offering 150 years of instability, change, clear falsifications and flavour of the month as evolutionary support.

So face off theory against theory as much as you like. You evolutionists seriously have no basis for feeling superior or ridiculing creationists.

For the second part of the above statement, we don't feel superior to creationists, we just think the two subjects are not in the same field and should not be compared. One is science, the other is not.

As for the bold part of your statement:

 

[Keachian]

I was going to make a long winded reply, but quite frankly your insistence on not understanding evolutionary theory is grating and I'd much rather discuss theology with other Christians than argue over misunderstandings of science which I only have half an understanding of myself, however I'm willing to admit this where as you are not

 

[Astridhere]

For the second part of the above statement, we don't feel superior to creationists, we just think the two subjects are not in the same field and should not be compared. One is science, the other is not.

As for the bold part of your statement:

What you misunderstand is that evolutionists produce stories, not science.