What proof would you need?

[Split Rock]

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

Unwillingness, yes.

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

Which is why I take your assertion that you walk by "faith" rather than "sight" with a grain of salt.

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.

Not allowed = unwilling.

 

[Phred]

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

God the Mathematician

And if you run the same algorithm on any book you get the same miraculous results!!! Why, the Harry Potter books are amazingly filled with 9's...

 

[Jazer]

Man gave us math. Man discovered math

You just contradicted yourself. Man did not create math. So I will go along with your claim that man discovered math. Just like man discovered God. To the degree that He pre existed and man did not create God.

 

[Loudmouth]

No theories do not change continually in any other science other than evolutionary science.

Yeah, they do. Quantum theory has been in a constant state of flux for the last 100 years. Even plate tectonic theory has gone through quite a recent shift in thinking. No theory in science stays put.

Evo science cannot keep any of its evidence from the evolutionary garbage bin for more than a few years or so.

H. erectus is still evidence. ERV's are still evidence. You rejecting the evidence does not mean it has been thrown away.

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.

And yet you criticize scientists for not reconsidering their views. You really need to decide what you are complaining about. One moment you criticize scientists for changing theories to fit the evidence. The very next moment you criticize scientists for not changing theories in light of new evidence. A consistent position would really be a major step forward for you.

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

A young Earth was falsified in the 1800's. YEC's are 200 years behind modern science. Rather than list evidence that you will just ignore I will take a different route. I will ask you what evidence you would accept as an indication of an old Earth. So what is it? What geologic formation should we not see if the Earth is young?

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

Whether or not they were knucklewalkers is just one of the finer details. The consistent position is that we share a common ancestor with chimps, and that position has not changed since Darwin's time.

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.

I don't claim that there is no God. What I do claim is that I have yet to see evidence for the gods that people claim exist. I would need the same evidence to believe in your god that you would require to believe in a god you currently don't believe in.

However, you do claim that there are no transitionals. This means that you must have a set of criteria for determing whether or not a fossil is transitional. What are those criteria?

So you are arguing that unless you are able to descibe these biblical assertions then you are not in a position to refute them.

I can describe them. If the Earth is young then I should not see tektites with more than 10,000 years worth of Argon production from Potassium decay. If the Earth is young then I should not see hundreds of thousands of correlating annual ice layers in Antarctica and Greenland. I could go on and on as to my criteria for determining whether or not the assertion of a young Earth is true or not. So what are your criteria for determining whether or not a fossil is transitional?

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

God can take any shape he wants being all powerful and such. If a thousand foot guy thta looked like Charleton Heston parted the clouds and started raining down lightning I would count that as God. The descriptions of nephalim in the Bible don't give a clear picture except they may have been tall and are human-like enough to mate with modern humans. At the same time, I don't claim that none of these exist. You do claim that transitionals do not exist. Your turn.

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.

How did you determine that there is no common ancestor? Please cite your evidence. What criteria did you use to determine whether or not humans and other apes share a common ancestor?

Also, the theory of evolution does predict that the common ancestor would have the characteristics that are common to both humans and chimps as well as other apes. From the differences between humans and other apes we can also figure out the derived characteristics in humans. Judging from the larger ape clade, this common ancestor would have large brow ridges, smaller cranium size than modern humans, prognathus, longer arms than modern humans, and ape basal features in the wrist to name just a few.

So I will ask again. How did you determine that H. erectus is not transitional? You keep citing differences between H. erectus and H. sapiens as an argument against H. erectus being transitional. Why would a transitional need to be identical to modern humans?

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.

I am not the one claiming that they do not exist. Such a statement requires a set of criteria to determine whether or not a fossil is transitional. Either withdraw the claim or list the criteria you are using.

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.

I have put up heaps of posts showing that modern humans are apes. Also, you have yet to explain what this has to do with H. erectus being a transitional or not. Why can't a transitional be an ape? Isn't that exactly what we should see if humans share a common ancestor with other apes?

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.

Where did you show that these bones came from a modern human? You have been arguing for pages now that homology does not equal relatedness, and that you can not construct an entire species from 1 or 2 bones. And yet here you are reconstructing an entire species through homology of 1 or 2 bones. Go figure.

These human bones were found alone, not attached to your apes.

They were not found attached to an anatomically modern human either, so how are you able to make these claims? In fact, it would appear that the femur on H. erectus is very much like our own.

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.

This is pure comedic gold. Do you even realize what you did in these two sentences? First, you completely invent a situation where scientists reconstruct a modern human skull into an ape skull (ignoring for the moment that humans are apes). You have no proof that this has ever occurred, nor that it would occur. You then chastise "evo researchers" for having baises and presumptions when in the previous sentence you show us nothing other than your biases and presumptions. Projection much?

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

They do not think that H. erectus is a joke, nor do they think common ancestry between humans and other apes is a joke. Nice try at quote mining.

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

So says the person who creates an entire modern bird from footprints, an entire mammal from tetrapod footprints, and an entire modern human from 2 bones and separate footprints.

Look below and learn

Nowhere does it state that Ardipethicus is nothing like chimps.

 

[Loudmouth]

part deux

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.

You have presented no such evidence. What you have shown is that modern human development evolved after H. erectus. The similarities between H. erectus and P. troglodytes is due to their shared ancestry. H. erectus kept the inherited developmental pattern that later changed in human evolution. All you have done is cite another example of just how transitional H. erectus really is.

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

Instead of claiming bias why don't you actually show it. You know, something with substance instead of empty accusations and complete fabrications.

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.

Where did I state that the common ancestor would not look anything like a chimp? Putting words in my mouth is not helping your argument.

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

Then pick one and we will discuss it in detail.

On the other hand I have evidence that mankind coexisted with purported ape ancestors with multiple finds,

No, you don't, even by your own standards. The femur was not attached to a modern human.

I have a 30% chimp/human difference

No, you don't. We even had an author from the chimp genome paper correct you on this. This is another of your porkies. The similarity is 98% based on substitutions and 95% when indels are included. Those are the numbers. Those are the facts.

and hugely different Y chromosomes as well as the chimp genome being 10% larger than mankind to demonstrate no ancestry,

The differences in the Y chromosome are miniscule when compared with the entire genome, and there is not a 10% difference in the size of the two genomes. Again, you have been corrected on this by an author from the chimp genome paper. Why do you continue to tell these porkies?

I have predictions re junk DNA

Which was falsified by a 2 million base pair deletion in mice that caused no phenotypic change in the mice at all.

and lack of transitional fossils confirmed,

How did you determine that H. erectus and all of the other hominid transitionals are not transitional? What criteria are you using?

I have research that places earth at the centre of the universe,

False. Shockwave theory is not considered to be a serious theory by anyone important. It is just something that you pulled out of nowhere. The Earth isn't even the center of our own galaxy or solar system, much less the Universe.

flood geology,

This is falsified by uninterrupted lake varves and annual ice layers.

the sudden appearance of life in the Cambrian,

You still have not told us how you determine if a fossil "suddenly appeared".

YEC dating methods via diamonds,

It isn't a dating method. It is a measurement of contamination in the assay system.

the irreducable comlexity of single celled life that could not have created itself,

Nowhere have you shown that IC systems can not evolve or that they were produced by a supernatural deity.

birds dated back halfway to the Devonian,

Constructing bird species from footprints again I see.

the sudden appearance of tetrapods 400mya etc etc etc.

Again, how do you determine if a fossil "suddenly appeared"?

There is much evidence for creation as well as much that can be falsified and challenged in evo science.

So my evidence is solid

It is laughable, as shown above.

Why don't we start with 400,000 annual ice layers in Anarctica to begin with. This falsifies both a young earth and a recent global flood.
Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

 

[Jazer]

Then let's see it, John.

It would take a whole book for me to go over everything. Are you really in the mood to read a book right now? If you would just learn the science then it would make it a lot easier to teach you the religious part of it. But lets start off with something very tiny:"Domestication of animals in the Middle East". If you were to study the History of Middle East and the Domestication of animals. You will see that Science confirms what the Bible says about his is all true. The problem is you don't know your Bible, you do not know anything about the History of the Middle East. So you can not make the comparison. I read and study all the time so I see again and again and again that what is know from Science confirms that what we read in the Bible is true.

The Middle East served as the source for many animals that could be domesticated, such as goats and pigs. This area was also the first region to domesticate the Dromedary Camel. The presence of these animals gave the region a large advantage in cultural and economic development. As the climate in the Middle East changed, and became drier, many of the farmers were forced to leave, taking their domesticated animals with them. It was this massive emigration from the Middle East that would later help distribute these animals to the rest of Afroeurasia. This emigration was mainly on an east-west axis of similar climates, as crops usually have a narrow optimal climatic range outside of which they cannot grow for reasons of light or rain changes. For instance, wheat does not normally grow in tropical climates, just like tropical crops such as bananas do not grow in colder climates. Some authors, like Jared Diamond, have postulated that this East-West axis is the main reason why plant and animal domestication spread so quickly from the Fertile Crescent to the rest of Eurasia and North Africa, while it did not reach through the North-South axis of Africa to reach the Mediterranean climates of South Africa, where temperate crops were successfully imported by ships in the last 500 years.[citation needed] The African Zebu is a separate breed of cattle that was better suited to the hotter climates of central Africa than the fertile-crescent domesticated bovines. North and South America were similarly separated by the narrow tropical Isthmus of Panama, that prevented the andes llama to be exported to the Mexican plateau."Wiki

"Camels are found throughout Bible History, where they were considered very useful and valuable. They were used for personal transportation (Genesis 24:61), as a beast of burden (Genesis 37:25), and in war (1 Samuel 30:17). The number of camels someone owned was sometimes used as a measurement of personal wealth (Genesis 30:43), and were considered to be a respectful gift (Genesis 32:15). However, unlike cattle which were acceptable for food according to the Levitical dietary regulations (see Clean and Unclean), camels (along with horses) were not to be eaten (Leviticus 11:4)."

"Jesus Christ sometimes used the camel in parables (see Parables Of Jesus Christ). To those who saw worldly wealth as more valuable than obeying God (e.g. Lazarus and the Rich Man), He said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24 RSV), and to the hypocritical Pharisees who placed great importance on observing minor religious regulations while at the same time living a life of sin, He said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin [see Herbs Of The Bible], and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (Matthew 23:23-24 RSV)." http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000902.htm

Let us take a look at Gen 30:43 "And the man increased exceedingly *, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses." This is a reference to Jacob 3500 years ago. Anyone with any IQ at all know that if you want LOTS of descendants you have to be able to feed them. If your descendants die from lack of food you are not going to have a lot of people named after you. Remember we are reading a story about Jacob that took place over 3500 years ago. We start to see what life was like back then (3500 years ago) and how that can relate to us and our life today.

This is just a tiny, tiny, tiny part of the whole thing. Just a beginning. There is really more here then what I think you would be willing to look into research and study. It just all depends on how much you want to come out of your darkness to learn and to know the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you were to study the History of Middle East and the Domestication of animals. You will see that Science confirms what the Bible says about his is all true.

We are not discussing the accuracy of the domesticated animals in the Middle East. We are discussing whether or not the characters in the Bible were real.

If I cited scientific evidence for logging in the history of the northern US would you accept this as evidence for Paul Bunyan? I could probably find scientific evidence for armored knights and horses in England over the last 2,000 years. Does this mean that King Arthur was a real person?

Is it all that surprising that a religious text coming from the Middle East describes animals and farming from the Middle East? Is this the best you can do?

I read and study all the time so I see again and again and again that what is know from Science confirms that what we read in the Bible is true.

The Cubs play their home games in Chicago.
Water is two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen.
Zeus is real.

If I confirm that the first two are correct, does this mean that the third claim is true?

The Middle East served as the source for many animals that could be domesticated

, such as goats and pigs. This area was also the first region to domesticate the Dromedary Camel. The presence of these animals gave the region a large advantage in cultural and economic development. As the climate in the Middle East changed, and became drier, many of the farmers were forced to leave, taking their domesticated animals with them. It was this massive emigration from the Middle East that would later help distribute these animals to the rest of Afroeurasia. This emigration was mainly on an east-west axis of similar climates, as crops usually have a narrow optimal climatic range outside of which they cannot grow for reasons of light or rain changes. For instance, wheat does not normally grow in tropical climates, just like tropical crops such as bananas do not grow in colder climates. Some authors, like Jared Diamond, have postulated that this East-West axis is the main reason why plant and animal domestication spread so quickly from the Fertile Crescent to the rest of Eurasia and North Africa, while it did not reach through the North-South axis of Africa to reach the Mediterranean climates of South Africa, where temperate crops were successfully imported by ships in the last 500 years.[citation needed] The African Zebu is a separate breed of cattle that was better suited to the hotter climates of central Africa than the fertile-crescent domesticated bovines. North and South America were similarly separated by the narrow tropical Isthmus of Panama, that prevented the andes llama to be exported to the Mexican plateau."Wiki

"Camels are found throughout Bible History, where they were considered very useful and valuable. They were used for personal transportation (Genesis 24:61), as a beast of burden (Genesis 37:25), and in war (1 Samuel 30:17). The number of camels someone owned was sometimes used as a measurement of personal wealth (Genesis 30:43), and were considered to be a respectful gift (Genesis 32:15). However, unlike cattle which were acceptable for food according to the Levitical dietary regulations (see Clean and Unclean), camels (along with horses) were not to be eaten (Leviticus 11:4)."

"Jesus Christ sometimes used the camel in parables (see Parables Of Jesus Christ). To those who saw worldly wealth as more valuable than obeying God (e.g. Lazarus and the Rich Man), He said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24 RSV), and to the hypocritical Pharisees who placed great importance on observing minor religious regulations while at the same time living a life of sin, He said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin [see Herbs Of The Bible], and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (Matthew 23:23-24 RSV)." Bible Study - Camels

How does any of this indicate that Adam and Eve were real people, the thing I keep asking for?

 

[Jazer]

But scientists do not change theories or even hypotheses in a "knee jerk" fashion...

Right they find a tiny fossil in China with a bird like dinosaur and now all of a sudden dinos were birds and had feathers. That is not a Knee Jerk? Sometimes the fossils they find and the conclusions they draw are a long shot to say the least.

 

[RickG]

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

Well I don't see why. After all, gravity is only a theory.

 

[Jazer]

How does any of this indicate that Adam and Eve were real people, the thing I keep asking for?

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. That is in the Middle East between the Tigris and Euphrates River. So Science and the Bible agree on the exact location and the exact date. Now if you read your Bible you would know how stupid it is to say it was another man and women OTHER than the Adam and Eve in the Bible WHY? you ask? Because the Bible is VERY exact about the descendants of Adam and Eve. I have given you that many, many, many times and you continue to ignore it. Again and again and again and again I have shown you that Science verifies the Bible is true and that the people in the Bible are real historical people. The Bible has been show to be a very accurate book. The Bible has been tested by every generation for 3500 years and found to be accurate and true.

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.

Do you have a problem with David and Solomon being a real person?
If so then who built Solomons temple? Because the foundation is still there today in Jerusalem.

 

[Jonathan95]

And if you run the same algorithm on any book you get the same miraculous results!!! Why, the Harry Potter books are amazingly filled with 9's...

Well is it a coincidence too that 7 is the number for spiritual perfection?

Since the Bible contains spiritual truth.

It's good to read it prayerfully.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right they find a tiny fossil in China with a bird like dinosaur and now all of a sudden dinos were birds and had feathers.

Birds are dinosaurs in the same way that dogs are mammals. What is the problem with this?

That is not a Knee Jerk?

No. This is the conclusion drawn from 150 years of collecting fossils starting with Archaeopteryx and including feathered nonavian dinosaurs, bird-dino transitionals, and dinosaur-like birds.

Sometimes the fossils they find and the conclusions they draw are a long shot to say the least.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific?

Do you have a problem with this reconstruction or something?

 

[Jazer]

Well I don't see why. After all, gravity is only a theory.

Is it a theory about the the 3750 " Steps of Repentance " leading to the top of Mount Sinai , Moses Mountain , Egypt

 

[AV1611VET]

Well I don't see why. After all, gravity is only a theory.

It's you guys that call it a 'theory' -- I believe we plebeians call it 'the Law of Gravity'.

 

[Phred]

It's you guys that call it a 'theory' -- I believe we plebeians call it 'the Law of Gravity'.

Really? What does that "law" say?

 

[Tiberius]

Is it a theory about the steps leading to my front door? What point are you trying to make there, Jazer?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Well is it a coincidence too that 7 is the number for spiritual perfection?

Yes, it's only important because you say it is. How about 3, or 40 or 10? What make a number "spiritual?" The fact is, we are pattern seeking mammals, and the only importance a number has is the distinction we attach to it.

 

[DaisyDay]

Really? What does that "law" say?

Things fall down.

 

[Loudmouth]

Things fall down.

Yep. The Law of gravity is a mathematical description of the observations related to gravity. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why gravity behaves in this way. Laws are a part of Theories. In science, Laws are kind of mundane. They are simply the observation. The goal of science is to explain why we see certain things in nature, or more specifically why gravity behaves like it does.

So claiming that the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Gravity are one in the same is completely wrong. They are different things. Theories never become Laws. Theories explain Laws.

 

[Jazer]

Really? What does that "law" say?

Gravity is sort of like marriage. At first you think you feel a real pull, but then it turns out you were pushed into it.