What proof would you need?

Tiberius said:

Except that it doesn't.

Genesis says light came before the sun, which didn't happen.

Genesis says that man came before animals (chapter 2), which didn't happen.

Genesis says that whales came before land animals, which didn't happen.

Click to expand...

WRONG...

1) The word "whales" in the Hebrew means large animal, even dinosaur.




2) Man was made AFTER the fish, the fowl, and the other animals.

Gen 1:26

You are not reading Genesis but lip service to what others say Genesis said.

3) God MADE the Sun the acting authority over earth time on the fourth Era of creation.







The word made, in the Hebrew, is NOT "create."

cupid dave said:

On your side you ignore what Genesis actually says so you can pretend it doesn't agree with evolution.

Click to expand...

You need to be telling the creaitonists this, not me.

What Genesis says or doesn't say is irrelevant as to the history of life on this planet. What matters is the evidence. The title of this thread is not "What would Genesis need to say in order for an Atheist to accept it". The title is asking for EVIDENCE.

Retconning Genesis to match the evidence found by science is a fool's errand, but you are welcome to it.

Every actual verse in Genesis conforms to what we now know.

Click to expand...

From what I have seen, you retcon Genesis to conform to what science discovers.

Retroactive continuity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What proof would someone need?

How about proving there's anything beyond pure nonsense to the religion?



Or does is the question perhaps intended to mislead someone into thinking anyone - anyone in the world - denies that allele frequencies change?

Loudmouth said:

So says the person who claims there are no transitional fossils but is unable to even describe what a transitional fossil should look like.

You are the one that is unable to describe what would constitute transitional features that you look for in identifying a transitional human. Remeberyou are the evolutionist trying to defend your science. You cannot articulate what a transitional human should look like.

We can go one more step. We can show you one. Here it is:

Click to expand...

I did not request a picture.

You have gone on and on about my/creationists describing an intermediate human. However you are unable to articulate what a transitional fossil should like yourself.

How do you know if any fossil is transitioning from a common ancestor, which you have no idea about, into either an ape or human?

Further to that we all know how valid your sketchings are after the initial misrepresentations of Neanderthal were falsified by DNA.

So let's look at this guy. I think it is Homo Habilis.


Homo Habilis skull.



Ardi's skull above




Above demonstrates how skulls are reconstructed to suit whatever evolutionists believe as flavour of the month.


Above female Bornean Orangutan. Orangs have more morphology in common with humans than chimps.


Now you explain what you are saying demonstrates the transition from some unknown ape to Ardi to Lucy to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to mankind.

How do you know these above are not simply apes or modern day ape ancestors? We know about convergent evolution, parallel evolution, Lluc had flat facial features 12 million years ago and indeed a female Bornean Orangutan skull looks more human than most of your erectus and habilis skulls.eg no sagital keel.

Where is the demonstration of human ancestry given even Turkana Boy, Homo erectus/ergaster, looks just the same as the rest?

Now don't cop out of this Loudmouth. Can you or can you not articulate, as to what makes any of these transitional from a common ancestor of chimps and humans you have no description of, to mankind and modern day chimps? How does the fossil record support ancestry to chimp like and ancestry to nothing like a chimp?

Every animal born is a transitional, you are the result of two different people and as such are different from them both,
certain characteristic are there but you are different, the further down the line you go the more different the offspring's become,
the better or worse the conditions they grow up in will effect there well being and result in tall strong or short weak descendent's.

Go to the high Andes where the people run around playing football and you wont be able to breath standing still without oxygen,
how did that happen? did God make them like that or was it evolution?

Astridhere said:

I did not request a picture.

You have gone on and on about my/creationists describing an intermediate human. However you are unable to articulate what a transitional fossil should like yourself.

How do you know if any fossil is transitioning from a common ancestor, which you have no idea about, into either an ape or human?

Further to that we all know how valid your sketchings are after the initial misrepresentations of Neanderthal were falsified by DNA.

So let's look at this guy. I think it is Homo Habilis.


Homo Habilis skull.

Ardi's skull above




Above demonstrates how skulls are reconstructed to suit whatever evolutionists believe as flavour of the month.

Above female Bornean Orangutan. Orangs have more morphology in common with humans than chimps.


Now you explain what you are saying demonstrates the transition from some unknown ape to Ardi to Lucy to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to mankind.

How do you know these above are not simply apes or modern day ape ancestors? We know about convergent evolution, parallel evolution, Lluc had flat facial features 12 million years ago and indeed a female Bornean Orangutan skull looks more human than most of your erectus and habilis skulls.eg no sagital keel.

Where is the demonstration of human ancestry given even Turkana Boy, Homo erectus/ergaster, looks just the same as the rest?

Now don't cop out of this Loudmouth. Can you or can you not articulate, as to what makes any of these transitional from a common ancestor of chimps and humans you have no description of, to mankind and modern day chimps? How does the fossil record support ancestry to chimp like and ancestry to nothing like a chimp?

Click to expand...

becon...I have requoted my post to illustrate that you are yet another example of an evolutionist that glorifies a theory that you are unable to defend with any substance. Asking me more questions is not an example of your defending your fossil evidence for human evolution. Asking me more questions is a substantial confirmation that you have no clue as to how to answer me or defend your so called science with any substance.

Indeed, you are correct in suggesting

"Every animal born is a transitional, you are the result of two different people and as such are different from them both,
certain characteristic are there but you are different, the further down the line you go the more different the offspring's become,"


What evolutionists like to do best to misrepresent fosil evidence is to give every adaptation, which you lot misrepresentatively call and confuse transitional, with nothing more than the huge variation seen in human skulls, and morphology likewise with the cat kind, the bird kind, the dog kind etc. Dogs are all the same species, humans are all the same species.

No I cannot answer every question just like you guys. However, quite clearly I am requesting that you defend just one species ancestry, Mankind. Evolutionists cannot. I can do this with every kind. However for now I am asking you to defend just one, Mankind.

The skulls above demonstrate no more than the variation found in just one species that you give terms like race and breed to. Your well credentialled researchers are at odds as to the human/chimp separation time. Ardi and Lucy have both been dethroned as human ancestors. Homo Habilis, Ardipithicus, Turkana Boy all look the same with no more variation than is observed today in same species, let alone kinds.

Your algorithms that demonstrate connectedness and dating are based on the presumption of ancestry to fossils you are unable to genetically test, or algorimthically reproduce from a fragment based on the same presumption. Some creature had to be more similar to mankind than any other. It happens to be chimps genetically, although mice are also close, and orangutans morphologically. Chimps are 30% different holistically at least. The human/chimp Y chromosomes are hugely and remarkably different as comparing the rest of the genome to a chicken and a human. That does take into account a 10% difference is size, the genome surface being different in composition, differences in protein expression, hot spots etc etc etc.

Your fossil evidence demonstrates nothing more than varieties of apes, likely orangs of some variation. These supposed transitions/human ancestors are more likely to be varieties and adaptations of much the same species as opposed to human ancestors. Certainly they are so similar if Ardi is an ape footed stupid ape, so are the rest of them, including Turkana Boy. Bipedalism is no more apparent than in apes today that can walk upright for short periods or bursts. It has nothing to do with becoming human and it has nothing to do with brain development. The rest of your transitionals are more likely to be ancestors of other apes some of which are around today. Dentition and jaw shapes have been demonstrated to be adaptations in response to environment and diet.

So again I ask Loudmouth, you or any creationist to answer my questions.

Can you or can you not articulate, as to what makes any of these transitional from a common ancestor of chimps and humans you have no description of, to mankind and modern day chimps? How does the fossil record support ancestry to chimp like and ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp?

Why must we always do the work for you? why can't you find out for yourselves? it's all out there for you to find, even if I gave you a cast iron argument you would find something you didn't like and we would be back to square one, you don't want evolution to be right no matter what, it is right but you would never admit it even if your pastor told you it was right, you would just go to another church.

For some stupid reason you think that if evolution is right Christianity is wrong, that's just plain stupid, there are millions and millions of theist who take evolution being right for granted.

Why do you think evolution is wrong but the magic of religion is right?

Jazer said:

Ok this is the Chart we have. We are looking at J2B3. This was 6,000 years ago. The Bible says Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago. Science and the Bible says that Adam and Eve lived in the Furtile Crescent.

Click to expand...

Where does the science show this, John? What science shows that this DNA came from Adam and Eve?

This is the step you leave out every time.

Astridhere said:

I did not request a picture.

You have gone on and on about my/creationists describing an intermediate human. However you are unable to articulate what a transitional fossil should like yourself.

Click to expand...

I articulated just that in posts 585 and 586. Perhaps you can respond to those posts?

How do you know if any fossil is transitioning from a common ancestor, which you have no idea about, into either an ape or human?

Click to expand...

Transitional is a adjective, not a verb. A transitional fossil is one that has a mixture of characteristics from two divergent taxa. The taxa in this case are humans and chimps. The fossils in this case are Homo and Australopithecines. I explained all of this in previous posts. I will assume that you missed it and give you this chance to respond (again, posts 585 and 586).

To further answer your specific question above, the transitional nature of a fossil and whether evolution occurred are two different conclusions. They are independent of one another. The theory of evolution predicts which transitionals we should see and which we should NOT see. For example, a transitional with derived bird and mammal features would actually falsify evolution. For example, if we found a bat with feathers or a bird with teats this would falsify evolution. However, such a fossil would still be transitional according to the most fundamental use of the term. Due to the massive number of predicted transitionals being found the term does often take on evolutionary terminology, but at its base is just a determination of the characteristics in the fossils and how they compare to other taxa.

After reading posts 585 and 586 please tell us how your definition differs, and why H. erectus and other hominid fossils fail to fit this definition. You promised that you would, so don't cop out.

Astridhere said:

becon...I have requoted my post to illustrate that you are yet another example of an evolutionist that glorifies a theory that you are unable to defend with any substance.

Click to expand...

So says the person who claims that there are no intermediates, and yet can not even define what an intermediate is. Talk about a lack of substance.

So again I ask Loudmouth, you or any creationist to answer my questions.

Can you or can you not articulate, as to what makes any of these transitional from a common ancestor of chimps and humans you have no description of, to mankind and modern day chimps? How does the fossil record support ancestry to chimp like and ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp?

Click to expand...

Already articulated in posts 585 and 586.

cupid dave said:

WRONG...

Click to expand...

ORLY? Let's have a look then.

1) The word "whales" in the Hebrew means large animal, even dinosaur.

Click to expand...

All evidence from the real world indicates that whales (the big swimming things in the ocean that give birth to live young and breathe air) evolved from land living ancestors. So, those land living ancestors must have lived BEFORE the sea going whales we have today. Genetics supports this, and so does the fossil record.

However, the Bible is VERY CLEAR that animals in the sea (such as whales) came BEFORE animals on land. Thus, the Bible says that whales came before the land animals that they evolved from. Either science or the Bible is wrong, and science has a wealth of evidence to support it.

So I disregard the Bible.

2) Man was made AFTER the fish, the fowl, and the other animals.

Gen 1:26

You are not reading Genesis but lip service to what others say Genesis said.

Click to expand...

God creates man in Genesis 2:7 and creates the animals in Genesis 2:19. It's very clear.

3) God MADE the Sun the acting authority over earth time on the fourth Era of creation.

Click to expand...

Okay, you wanna translate this into English please? And give a source for your statements?

The word made, in the Hebrew, is NOT "create."

Click to expand...

Want to define a difference between them? I mean, I can make a paper plane, or I can create a paper plane. In both cases, something exists afterwards that didn't exist before.

Tiberius said:

Either science or the Bible is wrong, and science has a wealth of evidence to support it.

Click to expand...

Someone is coming back soon to bankrupt your science though.

And for the record, what happened to the wealth of evidence that supported Phlogiston or prenatal Thalidomide?

AV1611VET said:

Someone is coming back soon to bankrupt your science though.

Click to expand...

People have been saying for nearly 2,000 years. Go figure.

AV1611VET said:

Someone is coming back soon to bankrupt your science though.

And for the record, what happened to the wealth of evidence that supported Phlogiston or prenatal Thalidomide?

Click to expand...

It's still there. Now we have new evidence that shows Phlogiston to be a false theory. Instead of claiming infallibility we have decided to admit our mistakes and learn from them.

Belk said:

It's still there. Now we have new evidence that shows Phlogiston to be a false theory. Instead of claiming infallibility we have decided to admit our mistakes and learn from them.

Click to expand...

You won't mind then if we wait for you guys to admit other mistakes as well?

AV1611VET said:

You won't mind then if we wait for you guys to admit other mistakes as well?

Click to expand...

So you don't accept that fire is the result of oxidation instead of phlogiston? Or are you taking thalidomide and waiting for science to withdraw the claims that it causes birth defects?

AV1611VET said:

You won't mind then if we wait for you guys to admit other mistakes as well?

Click to expand...

Why do you ask? It's not like there is anything that would make you change your opinion.

AV1611VET said:

Someone is coming back soon to bankrupt your science though.

Click to expand...

You guys have been saying that for 2000 years. It's old, AV.

And for the record, what happened to the wealth of evidence that supported Phlogiston or prenatal Thalidomide?

Click to expand...

It couldn't withstand scientific testing.

There's plenty of science that does.

Tiberius said:

You guys have been saying that for 2000 years. It's old, AV.

Click to expand...

Actually the church began in April of the year 29, so it has not been 2000 years yet.
You still have about 17 more years to go.

Loudmouth said:

Where does the science show this, John? What science shows that this DNA came from Adam and Eve?

This is the step you leave out every time.

Click to expand...

Actually I answer this question every day on here. Everything just matches up. There are many, many, many things about the story of Adam and Eve that Science shows us is true. Esp the DNA research they have been doing in the last 10 years. If the Adam and Eve in the Bible is not the Adam and Eve we hear about though genetic research, then they must have been next door neighbors. Because they lived at the exact same time in the exact same location. The Adam in the Bible was a farmer herdsman. Science tells us this was the beginning of farming and the herding of animals.