What proof would you need?

[Greg1234]

Really? God gave you the computer you're using? God paid for it? God creates the electricity you're using? God created the plastics, medicine, air conditioning, cars, etc you use every day? Oh no... wait... that's man's reason, logic, and knowledge.

Most of these things can be reverse engineered using God's creations, none are of any spiritual value, all are inferior (yes even the high-tech, state of the art winery)and not worthy of worship, we invented science too.

 

[Loudmouth]

What difference does that make? Lots of theists believe in evolution.

I am always careful to differentiate between christians and creationists. If I fail to do so in one of my posts please let me know and I will correct it as soon as possible.

 

[Jazer]

I am always careful to differentiate between christians and creationists.

Then why don't you differentiate between OEC, GAP & YEC. From what I understand the same people that give us the geological ages gave us OEC.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your the one that does not seem to "get it" because it would appear that you do not understand biodiversity and you do not understand the theory of evolution. But at this point it may not make all that much difference because there are a lot of more important things that you need to grasp on trying to understand their meaning. You got to get through grade school before you can try and take on the High School material. It will not do you any good to skip over things because then you will not have a proper foundation.

If someone claims that a mitochondrial DNA MRCA indicates that a population was founded by a single person described in religious mythology then I can pretty much assume that they do not get it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I will repeat for the squillionth time...theories are meant to be validated as opposed to theories evolving themselves.

You have just confirmed that you do not understand how science works. All theories change over time. They are meant to change over time. The entire purpose of scientific research is to change theories.

Theories are meant to be TESTED, not validated. When a theory does not pass a test then it is rewritten to explain the new evidence. Once again, you are complaining that science is not dogmatic.

The various creationist camps stick to their ideas and truths and validate them rather than knee jerk up another theory to explain the data like you guys eg Junk DNA.

The problem is that creationists stick with their ideas even when new evidence falsifies them.

I am nitpicking one area, mankind at the moment. I have nitpicked many areas on CF and you guys have not done any better than you are doing here..which is dreadfully. The rest of your taxons are the same eg birds...nonsense based on misrepresentation

They are just fine details that are being worked out, just like you claim for creationism. Therefore, evolution is just as stable as creationism by your criteria.

I cannot answer the question any better than you can re what God looks like. How accurately do you think you can describe what you believe to be a myth? It is a trap anyway that evos try to suck creationists into.

How can you claim that no transitionals exist when you don't know what a transitional looks like? You are making claims that these fossils are NOT transitional. In order to make such a claim you need to know what a real transitional should look like. So you have two choices.

1. List the criteria you are using for determining whether or not a fossil is transitional.

2. Withdraw the claim that there are no transitionals.

If you actually had evidence that was not fictional, contradictory and misrepresentative perhaps I would! There are theistic evos. I am not one of them.

So what would this evidence look like? What genetic marker shared by multiple species would indicate shared ancestry? Which features in a fossil would indicate an evolutionary transition? I understand that you reject all of the evidence we currently have. That is not the topic of this thread. What I am asking for is the evidence that would change your mind, if that is at all possible.

I keep telling you the various camps still to their guns and do not knee jerk cange their ideas on a continual basis. Obviously you have forgotten what stability looks like.

What you are describing is dogma. You are saying that you would accept evolution if it didn't change to fit the evidence.

Because Australopthicus is not transitional. It is an ape.

How did you determine that Australopithecines are not transitional, and why does being an ape disqualify a fossil from being transitional? Last I checked, humans are apes. Chimps our apes. By definition, a common ancestor for humans and chimps would be an ape. If I showed you a transitional fossil between wolves and chihuahuas would you reject it because the fossil was a canid?

Something without an ape head would be a good start.

So you are saying that according to evolution that the common ancestor of humans and apes was identical to modern humans? What about the common ancestor of all mammals? Also identical to modern humans? Common ancestor of all vertebrates? Please explain why a transitional between humans and other apes would not have an ape head.

Look at this

The Evolution of Early Man

So you have a human femur that could not belong to Habilis. You have a metatarsel that could not belong to Lucy. You have the Laetoli footprints that could not belong to Lucy. Therefore rather than the mess of contradictions, falsifications and no idea really that evolutionists have as an explanation for these human fossils. What you have is proof definitive that mankind was around all that time according to your dating methods.

How are you able to construct an entire species from a footprint? Please describe how this is done. You complain about evolutionists creating an entire species from a single bone, yet here you are constructing an entire species from a footprint. Double standard much?

C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth - two or three . net

No, it doesn't. It strongly supports contamination in the measurement process.

Since we are on the subject, what geologic formation, if found, would falsify a young earth? I am trying to figure out what evidence it would take to evidence an old earth from your perspective. Please, enlighten me.

Mankind co existed amongst the apes, as the evidence plainly demonstrates, and you lot are so desperately trying to turn these apes into human ancestors.

And yet you can't point to a single modern human skull from that time period. Why is that?

Turkana Boy as I said, is an ape.

Why does that disqualify Turkana Boy as a transitional? Also, modern humans are apes as well.

http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299

What did the Leakey's have to say about it all from the same article....

Yes, let's see what Richard Leakey had to say about Turkana Boy:

"I think [the Turkana Boy] is remarkable because it's so complete, but perhaps another aspect that is often overlooked is that many people who don't like the idea of human evolution have been able to discount much of the work that we've done on the basis that it's built on fragmentary evidence. There have just been bits and pieces, and who knows, those little bits of bone could belong to anything. To confront some of these people with a complete skeleton that is human and is so obviously related to us in a context where it's definitely one and a half million years or even more is fairly convincing evidence, and I think many of the people who are fence-sitters on this discussion about creationism vs. evolution are going to have to get off the fence in the light of this discovery."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
​

So Leakey clearly says that Turkana Boy is related to us.

The creationists prediction that there are no intermediates . . .

What features must a fossil have in order to falsify this prediction?

What is observed is evidence of mankind co existing amongst apes, my dear.

So says the person creating humans from footprints.

You also have no explantation as to why your fossil evidence supported ancestry to a creature that was chimp like and with the wave of a hand now supports ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp at all!

Since when is Ardipithecus "nothing like a chimp"?

It is evolutionists that should reconsider their view.

You have already said that you reject evolution because scientists keep reconsidering their views in the light of new evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why don't you differentiate between OEC, GAP & YEC.

Those are all creationists.

 

[Jazer]

God gave you the computer you're using?

God gave us math and without math you have no computer.
A computer in a way is a discovery of what God Created.

What we need to learn first from the Bible is that there are two realms of existence:
The physical (our temporary realm) and the spiritual (our eternal realm).

Binary: of or pertaining to a system of numerical notation to the base 2.

 

[Jazer]

Those are all creationists.

Ok so when you take all of creationism into account then what is the problem?

 

[Jazer]

If someone claims that a mitochondrial DNA MRCA indicates that a population was founded by a single person described in religious mythology then I can pretty much assume that they do not get it.

How many times have I given you the geneology out of the Bible? You do not seem to get it. In what way do you believe that the record that we get from Dr Luke is not accurate? Again show me where the Bible is not accurate or true. Prove to me that this is a myth and not real historical people. If this were not true then it should be VERY easy for you to show us that this is NOT true. You make a lot of noise but you have failed to show us that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. Oh you can pick on me, as if you were a perfect person. But show me the error in the Bible. You logic and reason says there has to be error in the Bible so show me the error.

3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove to me that this is a myth and not real historical people.

This is called "shifting the burden of proof". You are claiming that these are real people. It is up to you to supply the evidence. Mitochondrial DNA MRCA's are not evidence for what you are claiming. Every time you claim that the mtDNA MRCA evidences Eve you are wrong. What are you not getting?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok so when you take all of creationism into account then what is the problem?

In context with my discussion with Astrid, the problem is disagreement between creationists on very fundamental issues such as the age of the Earth and the relatedness of species. This fits Astrid's definition of unstable which is what I was pointing out.

 

[Astridhere]

You have just confirmed that you do not understand how science works. All theories change over time. They are meant to change over time. The entire purpose of scientific research is to change theories.
No theories do not change continually in any other science other than evolutionary science. Evo science cannot keep any of its evidence from the evolutionary garbage bin for more than a few years or so. What is it about this that you refuse to understand. You have those evogoggles on.
Theories are meant to be TESTED, not validated. When a theory does not pass a test then it is rewritten to explain the new evidence. Once again, you are complaining that science is not dogmatic.
Theoretical sciences change like the wind. Hence by your own admission of evo science being a science in continual transformation have concurred that evolution is not a fact but rather is a theory supported by evidences that are falsified in time. Hence TOE is still very much a theory and not a fact in any sense.


The problem is that creationists stick with their ideas even when new evidence falsifies them.

Well then you had best put up support as I see no changes in the various camps apart from the classification of Homo Erectus.



They are just fine details that are being worked out, just like you claim for creationism. Therefore, evolution is just as stable as creationism by your criteria.

No dear having proof we evolved from knucklewalkers and then having proof that we didn't is called having no evidence for anything.

How can you claim that no transitionals exist when you don't know what a transitional looks like? You are making claims that these fossils are NOT transitional. In order to make such a claim you need to know what a real transitional should look like. So you have two choices.
Again how do you know there is no God if you are unable to suggest what God may look like or nephalim or the instant of creation. So you are arguing that unless you are able to descibe these biblical assertions then you are not in a position to refute them. That is an evo nonsense.
1. List the criteria you are using for determining whether or not a fossil is transitional.

2. Withdraw the claim that there are no transitionals.

Not until you describe what a God or nephalim looks like!

So what would this evidence look like? What genetic marker shared by multiple species would indicate shared ancestry? Which features in a fossil would indicate an evolutionary transition? I understand that you reject all of the evidence we currently have. That is not the topic of this thread. What I am asking for is the evidence that would change your mind, if that is at all possible.

It is not about rejection of evidence. It is about your not having any evidence of substance. There are a plethora of evolutionary evidences that now reside in the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past. Why would anyone believe any of it. If I were an evolutionists I would feel like a fool on the back of your continual falsifications and change.


What you are describing is dogma. You are saying that you would accept evolution if it didn't change to fit the evidence.
I am saying you lot will have to have more substance to your claims than you can offer at present.


How did you determine that Australopithecines are not transitional, and why does being an ape disqualify a fossil from being transitional? Last I checked, humans are apes. Chimps our apes. By definition, a common ancestor for humans and chimps would be an ape. If I showed you a transitional fossil between wolves and chihuahuas would you reject it because the fossil was a canid?

I have put up heaps of posts showing Turkana Boy to be an ape. You do not refute these posts or points of comparison. You just ignore them. I will put up more below for you to ignore.

So you are saying that according to evolution that the common ancestor of humans and apes was identical to modern humans? What about the common ancestor of all mammals? Also identical to modern humans? Common ancestor of all vertebrates? Please explain why a transitional between humans and other apes would not have an ape head.

No, what is it about your ability to comprehend that is lacking. If you havn't got it yet what I a saying is there is no common ancestor between chimps and mankind and evolutionists are unable to produce one nor describe themselves what the common ancestor looks like. If it ends up being a squirrel like that would still do you also.


You cannot describe an intermediate or common ancestor yourself. What transitional features can you support when you have no idea what mankind transitioned from? You see you can only offer nonsense, guesses and changes in thinking.

How are you able to construct an entire species from a footprint? Please describe how this is done. You complain about evolutionists creating an entire species from a single bone, yet here you are constructing an entire species from a footprint. Double standard much?

Dear here is ignorance at its best. I have also produced a human femor and metatarsel bone along with the footprints as proof that mankind coexisted with the apes you suggest are ancestors. This you have again ignored. Ignorance will not save your face as others can clearly go back and see I have supported my assertions with more than just human footprints. These human bones were found alone, not attached to your apes. The obvious reason being that mankind was there alive and well and looked into Lucys ape eyes and saw that she was of the ape kind and not mankind.

No, it doesn't. It strongly supports contamination in the measurement process.
Contamination is a huge problem. I haven't even gone there yet but thanks for bringing it up anyway.

Since we are on the subject, what geologic formation, if found, would falsify a young earth? I am trying to figure out what evidence it would take to evidence an old earth from your perspective. Please, enlighten me.

Again there is no point having a discussion with you Loudmouth. You simply do not read the evidence I put up. Nor do you refute it. Here are some more YEC dating methods again. Read them this time. Old or young earth does not disprove creation. It is a mute point.

C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth - two or three . net
The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.
Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood - Answers in Genesis

And yet you can't point to a single modern human skull from that time period. Why is that?


If a human skull was found in pieces your researchers would reconstruct an ape. That is the basis of bias and presumption your evo researchers work under. If they found a human skull in tact it would be dated based on predefined assumtions. You kiely have found one but it has been dated incorrectly by your algorithms and presumtpions as much earlier.

Why does that disqualify Turkana Boy as a transitional? Also, modern humans are apes as well.

http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299

I have already spoken to this many times. You lot get out your measuring tapes and create all sorts of lines and nonsense to demonstrate connections. Just look at the side view of Turkana boy, his extra verterbra, narrow pelvis and neural cannal. Even the pelvic girdle looks like either side is from a different individual. I'd say Turkana Boy is a mix of individuals. Turkana Boy was found in layers and not found in tact as you lot would have the world believe. It was reconstructed from fragments into the representation that suits you. Just look at his head. That is all you need to do to clearly see this thing is as ape or monkey like as many apes and monkeys are today in comparison to mankind. However common sense has no place in evolutionary science.


Yes, let's see what Richard Leakey had to say about Turkana Boy:

"I think [the Turkana Boy] is remarkable because it's so complete, but perhaps another aspect that is often overlooked is that many people who don't like the idea of human evolution have been able to discount much of the work that we've done on the basis that it's built on fragmentary evidence. There have just been bits and pieces, and who knows, those little bits of bone could belong to anything. To confront some of these people with a complete skeleton that is human and is so obviously related to us in a context where it's definitely one and a half million years or even more is fairly convincing evidence, and I think many of the people who are fence-sitters on this discussion about creationism vs. evolution are going to have to get off the fence in the light of this discovery."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
​

So Leakey clearly says that Turkana Boy is related to us.

Yes and they all think your evo tree is a joke. That is the point



What features must a fossil have in order to falsify this prediction?

What evidence does a creationists need to falsify their predictions?

So says the person creating humans from footprints.

Again I have produced more than footprints for you to simply ignore. Do you feel threatened? Is that why you tell porkies?

Since when is Ardipithecus "nothing like a chimp"?

Look below and learn



You have already said that you reject evolution because scientists keep reconsidering their views in the light of new evidence.
Instability is a key feature falsifying evolutionary theory on an ongoing basis. This is true. However additionally you do not have any substantial evidence for evolution. Alternatively creationists have much observed evidence for creation and YECs have good dating methods to back their claims.

Growth study of wild chimpanzees challenges assumptions about early humans, anthropologists say


The results challenge the assumption that human evolution followed a path from a chimplike ancestor to a transitionary Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens, suggesting instead that chimpanzees have more in common developmentally with Homo erectus and that modern humans are the "out-group."

"These findings challenge a number of assumptions about the growth of hominids," said Zihlman. "Anthropologists and paleoanthropologists have relied heavily on studies of captive chimpanzees to establish a baseline for hominid growth and to generate hypotheses about the life history and behaviors of fossil humans. We now know those scenarios are based on faulty data."

Homo Erectus May Not Have Been a Transitional Form Leading to Modern Humans

Growth study of wild chimpanzees challenges assumptions about early humans, anthropologists say - UC Santa Cruz

So again I produce evidence from your own that Homo Erectus are the out group. This supports my claim yet again that Erectus are not human. Evo researchers try to humanize any fossil in its reconstruction.

All your comparisons are based on faulty and biased data and this little creationists is not the only one that believes so.

Making comparisons to chimps when it is likely even by your own asssetions that the common ancestor is unlikely to look anything like a chimp is solid proof that your researchers have no substantial baseline from which to make comparisons. They are simply gropping in the dark.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

On the other hand I have evidence that mankind coexisted with purported ape ancestors with multiple finds, I have a 30% chimp/human difference and hugely different Y chromosomes as well as the chimp genome being 10% larger than mankind to demonstrate no ancestry, I have predictions re junk DNA and lack of transitional fossils confirmed, I have research that places earth at the centre of the universe, flood geology, the sudden appearance of life in the Cambrian, the sudden appearance of every kind in the fossil record, YEC dating methods via diamonds, the irreducable comlexity of single celled life that could not have created itself, birds dated back halfway to the Devonian, the sudden appearance of tetrapods 400mya etc etc etc. There is much evidence for creation as well as much that can be falsified and challenged in evo science.

So my evidence is solid and much is undeniable. This is compared with a theory in evolution itself. I must say that I win by miles on the balance of evidence.

 

[Jazer]

It is up to you to supply the evidence.

So you admit that you can not show us where the Bible is in error.

 

[Astridhere]

In context with my discussion with Astrid, the problem is disagreement between creationists on very fundamental issues such as the age of the Earth and the relatedness of species. This fits Astrid's definition of unstable which is what I was pointing out.

This is because you simply cannot get that there are various creationist camps all of which adhere to their assertions and do not subject their assertions and interpretation to never ending alterations in knee jerk fashion changes, like TOE.

There is no instability in the mainstream creationist camps. They have their ideas and look for support as opposed to changing what they assert on a continually evolving basis. You simply cannot compare the ever changing nature of evolutionary science to creationists sciences. To do so highlights your inability to deal with the truth.

 

[Jazer]

the problem is disagreement between creationists on very fundamental issues such as the age of the Earth and the relatedness of species.

That is exactly what my father told me all my life. Creationists & Christians do not agree with each other. So who do you listen to? I would tell him today if he were still alive to listen to Science. That is to say the scientific method does a fine job of testing the Bible to see what is true. We are told to test all things. Science tells us the age of the earth. Science tells us that Noah's flood could not have been a world wide flood. Science can also verify that Adam and Eve were real historic people that lived in the Garden in Eden 6,000 years ago. Just as the Bible says. You can go off on a tangent about talking snakes if you want. But your ignoring a lot that has been proven and trying to make a big deal out of what little bit there is that has not yet been proven. Or more accurate you do not understand.

1 thess 5 "21 Test all things; hold fast what is good."

 

[Split Rock]

This is because you simply cannot get that there are various creationist camps all of which adhere to their assertions and do not subject their assertions and interpretation to never ending alterations in knee jerk fashion changes, like TOE.

They all adhere to their assertions like glue; you are correct. As a famous poster here once said, "Creationists can't all be right, but they can all be wrong." But scientists do not change theories or even hypotheses in a "knee jerk" fashion... they change them in response to new data or new analyses of old data. Something that glue-like creationists like yourself refuse to do. That is why you will never be right about anything.

There is no instability in the mainstream creationist camps. They have their ideas and look for support as opposed to changing what they assert on a continually evolving basis. You simply cannot compare the ever changing nature of evolutionary science to creationists sciences. To do so highlights your inability to deal with the truth.

LOL! This made me laugh! You have just highlighted your inability to deal with reality, since you will not change your position even when reality dictates you do so. You can keep your **ha,ha** "Truth." It is nothing but snakeoil.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL! This made me laugh! You have just highlighted your inability to deal with reality, since you will not change your position even when reality dictates you do so.

Choosing not to do something ≠ inability to deal with something.

You can keep your **ha,ha** "Truth." It is nothing but snakeoil.

I have to respect reality; I would certainly stop at the edge of a cliff and not continue on.

But there are some things in 'reality' that I feel I don't have to respect; and indeed, there are even some things in reality that I am not allowed to respect.

 

[Phred]

God gave us math

You can't just take anything that you can't pin directly to a person and say, "goddidit". God didn't give us math. Man gave us math. Man discovered math in bits and pieces. Which is why we didn't have "zero" for quite some time.

and without math you have no computer.
A computer in a way is a discovery of what God Created.

Man created God so, in a way, a computer is a discovery of what man created.

What we need to learn first from the Bible is that there are two realms of existence:
The physical (our temporary realm) and the spiritual (our eternal realm).

Or, the physical (the real realm) and the spiritual (our imaginary realm)

 

[Loudmouth]

Science can also verify that Adam and Eve were real historic people that lived in the Garden in Eden 6,000 years ago.

Then let's see it, John.

As a parallel to this discussion I will show that Paul Bunyan was a real historical person using your same style of argument. First, the stories of Paul Bunyan describe logging activity in the northern US in such states as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. When we look at the scientific evidence we find that there was logging going on in these states during the time of Paul Bunyan. Therefore, science has confirmed that Paul Bunyan was a real person. Wouldn't you agree, John?

 

[Jonathan95]

You can't just take anything that you can't pin directly to a person and say, "goddidit". God didn't give us math. Man gave us math. Man discovered math in bits and pieces. Which is why we didn't have "zero" for quite some time.


Man created God so, in a way, a computer is a discovery of what man created.


Or, the physical (the real realm) and the spiritual (our imaginary realm)

THE MATHEMATICAL SIGNATURE OF GOD IN THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE [INCREDIBLE PROOF]

God the Mathematician