When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Subduction Zone]

And who "confined" us?

Wasn't our "popular interpretation" held by Jesus Christ as well?

You make it sound like creationism "broke out" in America, when creationism has been the norm since 4004 BC.

Starting with the garden of Eden.

(Actually before that, when the angels celebrated the creation of the earth.)

As has already been pointed out no one confined you. And if Jesus held the same interpretation that only would mean that he was not who you think that he is. If he was just a man it was very likely that he held your errant beliefs.

Actually most of the world is free from this error, just as they are free of the belief that everything rotates around the Earth. Most places learned quite a lot about their beliefs and science. The Catholics seem to have taken the lesson of their past mistake to heart.

 

[AV1611VET]

YECism as a modern phenomenon dates from the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris in the early 1960s.

Ya ... silly me.

I keep forgetting that Adam and Abraham and David and Solomon and Isaiah and Habakkuk all thought the universe was 13.7 billion years old, due to cosmic evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if Jesus held the same interpretation that only would mean that he was not who you think that he is.

Well He's certainly not who you think that He is.

 

[rjs330]

Primates was a man created idea based on visible similarities.
Then came the fossil evidence that showed even more varieties of primate bridging the differences between the living primates.
Then came the genetic evidence that showed a pattern of similarities consistent with relatedness.


It's not that it happened a long time ago, it's that it takes a long time for large changes to build up.
Even in the very short period of human history we have demonstrated that selection acting on genetic mutation can cause large scale physical changes:

Can you actually define what you mean by proof?
Because while mathematical and logical proof might be absolute, they only exist within their own defined axioms. Proof in the sense of "proof of evolution" as a colloquial phrase means "beyond reasonable doubt" and evolution has certainly met that criteria.

Do you not believe in paternity tests? How about finger prints? DNA? Fibers?

We have evidence, and we can observe its acquisition.

We can observe physical changes from mutations. We can examine trees of life forms for signs that mutations caused the variation. Finally, we can find no barrier to mutations be the source of the variation.

[/QUOTE]

You make my point. Similarities do not prove evolution. It proves common design. Evolution is one thing evolving into something else. I've heard the mantra about how that is not evolution. Its false. That is exactly what evolution is. When you follow the line of evolutionary thought to the very beginning we all came from a,common ancestor, primates, fish, sharks, spiders, birds, lizards etc. All came from one thing. Therefore we all evolved from something else. We have zero evidence of that ever happening. All evolutionists can do is point to is a bacteria adapting to vaccines or a,lizard adapting to its environment.

Proof of evolution is a tricky thing because it is such a dogma now that any discovery can be considered proof of evolution. Because it's based on the assumption that evolution is true. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal term. An act was committed is a fact. Evidence then leads us to decide whether the act was a crime or not and to who committed the crime and how they did it.

In the mind of evolutionists evolution is a fact. Now we find evidence to prove that it was evolution and how it occurred.

Yet we have no real evolution to point to as a fact. We can't point to a single living creature and say see this is evolving into,something else nor can we say as a fact that it evolved from something else because we don't know. We suppose and we assume.

All fossils do is prove that the creature existed. It doesn't prove it came from anything,else not does it prove it was becoming something else. All similarities do is show common design. They do not prove common ancestry.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Nobody "confined" you. For what amounts to historical reasons, YECism does not seem to have made much headway outside of the US.


Unlikely. I don't know what Jesus believed about it, but I think it is reasonable to assume that people in those days generally took the Genesis stories as in some sense historical. However, that is not the same thing as literal inerrancy, a notion that is not more than a couple of hundred years old.


YECism as a modern phenomenon dates from the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris in the early 1960s.

Of course, one must be careful of how the term "creationist" is used. It is apparent that you would like to pretend that anyone who does not subscribe to your brand of YECism is, in effect, denying Gods authorship of the Universe.

YECism is as old as the Bible. You are referring to a debate that was started by scientists when they began to proclaim the age of the earth and evolution. Many years ago people didn't really know,or care about that stuff. There was no way to really try and define the,age of the earth. I think most people either just believed the Bible or whatever their religious mythologies taught them about how the world came to be without any real thought as to the age of the earth especially when it came to science and evolution. Once evolutionists started to declair the age of the earth being millions or billions of years old and evolution which challenged the common thoughts then the pushback began with the YECism. Before that it's was just either accepted that the Bible had it right or most folks didn't really care or think about it.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

No we are not all primates.

Yes, we are.

"The primates include the most familiar of the placental mammals, because they include us, Homo sapiens."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/primates.html

Monkeys are monkeys and humans are humans and we have always been what we are.

And all monkeys and humans are primates just as Chihuahuas are Chihuahuas and great danes are great danes, but both are dogs.

Primates are a man created idea that puts things with certain similarities into a category.

Which is exactly what you are doing with humans and monkeys.

Again it is an assumption. We see what we want to see. Still without proof.

So are you are saying that all of those orthologous ERVs really aren't orthologous? You need to provide proof of what you claim. Show us that the human and chimp ERVs are not found at the same spot in both genomes.

Until you do, we do have the proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

You make my point. Similarities do not prove evolution. It proves common design.

Matching phylogenies for both genetics and morphology does prove evolution, as I have already explained to you. Why do you keep ignoring this?

When you follow the line of evolutionary thought to the very beginning we all came from a,common ancestor, primates, fish, sharks, spiders, birds, lizards etc. All came from one thing.

And they are still that thing. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor who was a primate, and we are still primates. Bears and humans share a common ancestor who was a mammal, and we are still mammals. Fish and humans share a common ancestor that was a vertebrate, and we are still vertebrates.

We have zero evidence of that ever happening.

We have the proof of orthologous ERVs shared by primates which you still ignore.

Now we find evidence to prove that it was evolution and how it occurred.

Orthologous ERVs and matching phylogenies are that proof.

All fossils do is prove that the creature existed.

They also prove what mixture of features existed in previous species which also proves evolution. The theory of evolution predicts which mixture of features you should and should not see, and the fossil exactly match those predictions. That makes it proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

YECism is as old as the Bible.

So is biblically based Geocentrism.

 

[-57]

Lots. The point is that the only important step in evolution is the next step. What all those steps add up to over a long period is highly contingent. You are right in that the odds against any particular long term outcome are enormous, but the odds of some favorable outcome are reasonably good.

It's nice to make claims...reasonably good....as you put it. But, supporting it. Not so good. Your science is based upon what you think. Feel, believe.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's nice to make claims...reasonably good....as you put it. But, supporting it. Not so good. Your science is based upon what you think. Feel, believe.

Are human and chimp ERVs found at the same location in each genome just because we think so? Both genome sequences are published online and can be checked by anyone. Care to disprove it?

 

[-57]

Are human and chimp ERVs found at the same location in each genome just because we think so? Both genome sequences are published online and can be checked by anyone. Care to disprove it?

Could the ERVs have gotten there independently rather than have been inherited?
here is a pretty good explanation of ERV's and how they work, what they do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Could the ERVs have gotten there independently rather than have been inherited?

No. Retroviruses insert all over the place. The chances of two separate insertions happening at the same spot are very small. For human and chimp ERVs, more than 99% are found at the same location.

here is a pretty good explanation of ERV's and how they work, what they do.

Please describe it in your own words. I am not going to have a discussion with a video.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well He's certainly not who you think that He is.

Now why would you say that? He is much more likely to be who I think that he was than you what you think that he was.

 

[AV1611VET]

He is much more likely to be who I think that he was than you what you think that he was.

Is that why I capitalized "He" and you didn't?

Not to mention the fact that I said "is" and you said "was"?

 

[46AND2]

Please describe it in your own words. I am not going to have a discussion with a video.

It's an Ian Juby video with guest speaker, and the arguments boil down to the same things you have already addressed countless times:

1. ERV's have functions
2. ERV's aren't viral remnants
3. ERV's aren't inserted randomly

 

[Loudmouth]

It's an Ian Juby video with guest speaker, and the arguments boil down to the same things you have already addressed countless times:

1. ERV's have functions
2. ERV's aren't viral remnants
3. ERV's aren't inserted randomly

1. Doesn't matter.
2. They are viral remnants since ERVs can produce viable retroviruses.
3. The slight non-random behavior of retroviral insertion would not produce the same insertion 99.9% of the time.

All of these creationist arguments are covered in depth at the New Retrovirus Thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that why I capitalized "He" and you didn't?

Not to mention the fact that I said "is" and you said "was"?

Yep, he was probably just a man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's an Ian Juby video with guest speaker, and the arguments boil down to the same things you have already addressed countless times:

1. ERV's have functions
2. ERV's aren't viral remnants
3. ERV's aren't inserted randomly

Don't forget to mention that his "expert" is a veterinarian. I guess that might be a slight improvement on the dentists and failed chemist now working as an auto mechanic that they use.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, he was probably just a man.

That didn't sound too convincing.

From an atheist's perspective, I would assume he was [sic] either a man or a woman.

 

[rjs330]

Matching phylogenies for both genetics and morphology does prove evolution, as I have already explained to you. Why do you keep ignoring this?



And they are still that thing. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor who was a primate, and we are still primates. Bears and humans share a common ancestor who was a mammal, and we are still mammals. Fish and humans share a common ancestor that was a vertebrate, and we are still vertebrates.



We have the proof of orthologous ERVs shared by primates which you still ignore.


Orthologous ERVs and matching phylogenies are that proof.



They also prove what mixture of features existed in previous species which also proves evolution. The theory of evolution predicts which mixture of features you should and should not see, and the fossil exactly match those predictions. That makes it proof.

Sorry none of that is proof unless you,want it to. Its still,all assumption because you cannot prove any of it causes one creature to turn into,something else. You can try to explain until you are blue in the face but all your explanations do is prove that you want evolution to be true no matter the fact you can't prove it. All those wonderful discoveries show is common design not evolution. When someone can prove that one thing can evolve into something else then you will,have proof. Until then it is only wishful thinking.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk