Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[Al Touthentop]

In post #77, you sourced an article from a young earth Creationists website. Science really could not be approached in a more faulty way.

You are as disingenuous as it gets.

(“Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts,” The Smithsonian, Vol. 23, July 1992, p.70.)

The reference may have been quoted on a creationist's website but I didn't post the opinion of a creationist. You don't want to deal with the content. You want to attack the source. Is the Smithsonian a bastion of creationist theory?

 

[Job 33:6]

You are as disingenuous as it gets.

(“Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts,” The Smithsonian, Vol. 23, July 1992, p.70.)

The reference may have been quoted on a creationist's website but I didn't post the opinion of a creationist. You don't want to deal with the content. You want to attack the source. Is the Smithsonian a bastion of creationist theory?

You must look deeper at your own source friend. You keep feeding me empty words.

What does it say?

Critique your source.

Be genuine with your investigation.

Let us examine the substance of your commentary a little closer.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You must look deeper at your own source friend. You keep feeding me empty words.

No I mustn't. What objection do you have to the content? I had never visited that site before posting the content I found in the article. Note, I did not post the author's opinion.

What does it say?

I don't care. I cared about a neutral quotation from a respected evolution-promoting source, biased toward your view.

You telling me to be genuine is pretty funny given your refusal to address most of what I've posted to you in favor of attacking sources.

Explain how an organism could transition from asexual to sexual outside of a single generation and still survive.

 

[Job 33:6]

No I mustn't. What objection do you have to the content? I had never visited that site before posting the content I found in the article. Note, I did not post the author's opinion.


I don't care. I cared about a neutral quotation from a respected evolution-promoting source, biased toward your view.

You telling me to be genuine is pretty funny given your refusal to address most of what I've posted to you in favor of attacking sources.

Explain how an organism could transition from asexual to sexual outside of a single generation and still survive.

"I had never visited that site before posting the content I found in the article" -spoken like someone truly sincere about investigation.

"I don't care." - you don't care about what your own post says?

But what was the purpose of posting what you posted?

My objection is that it doesn't say anything worth saying.

And all you're doing is justifying my objection by not clarifying on what you were trying to say.

What does your source say and why did you post it?

 

[Jamdoc]

And this proves that the bible is wrong?

The bible isn't wrong, but human interpretations of it are. The bible says kind, not species. if we find evolution branching out from different families of animals, that shows that a kind in the bible is not a species but rather a family of species.

How does this disprove genetics of "kind."

It shows that the human assumption of equating "kind" with "species" is wrong.

By evolution?

Exactly by evolution. God used the representative species for each kind to re-diversify life on this planet. He took the 2 elephants from Noah's Ark, and had them breed, and then caused them to migrate, become geographically isolated, and then evolved them into multiple species of Elephant. He took the 2 canids (probably wolves) from the Ark, had them breed and spread over the planet, then mutated and evolved them into foxes, coyotes, jackals, etc. Note that Mankind has taken wolves and essentially created a new subspecies out of it, our domesticated Dogs, and some of those dogs were taken to Australia, where they became feral again and are now dingos. If man can push evolution to that degree, why do you doubt that God could do more with it?

Only if it was impossible for a species to go extinct after the flood. Mammoths have been found in ice that still had food in their mouth when they were frozen.

I think the ice age is directly related to the flood, and that's when mammoths died out. God had been preparing for the flood for a long time, much of the water for the flood was locked up in glaciers and ice sheets, in scripture it's not just rain that causes the flood, but also water from below, and I interpret that as melting ice sheets and glaciers. When those glaciers melted the resulting torrents of water literally scoured Eastern Washington down to the rock. Then after the end of the flood, God froze a lot of that water back up, into our ice sheets and glaciers that we still have.

 

[Al Touthentop]

"I had never visited that site before posting the content I found in the article" -spoken like someone truly sincere about investigation.

"I don't care." - you don't care about what your own post says?

No, it's you who don't care. And your misrepresentation of what I said about that is just more evidence that you are dishonest.

My objection is that it doesn't say anything worth saying.

It doesn't say what you want to address.

What does your source say and why did you post it?

The source which quoted the Smithsonian article is not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is what the Smithsonian article said. What is your problem with what the Smithsonian article said?

 

[Al Touthentop]

The bible isn't wrong, but human interpretations of it are. The bible says kind, not species. if we find evolution branching out from different families of animals, that shows that a kind in the bible is not a species but rather a family of species.

Which is not in dispute between us so it's not really a point we need to argue about.

It shows that the human assumption of equating "kind" with "species" is wrong.

A strawman.

Exactly by evolution. God used the representative species for each kind to re-diversify life on this planet.

A nice theory but you can't prove it.

I think the ice age is directly related to the flood, and that's when mammoths died out. God had been preparing for the flood for a long time, much of the water for the flood was locked up in glaciers and ice sheets, in scripture it's not just rain that causes the flood, but also water from below, and I interpret that as melting ice sheets and glaciers. When those glaciers melted the resulting torrents of water literally scoured Eastern Washington down to the rock. Then after the end of the flood, God froze a lot of that water back up, into our ice sheets and glaciers that we still have.

You want to try and reconcile the word in your way. But God said he created all of the species in the beginning complete and fully mature.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, it's you who don't care. And your misrepresentation of what I said about that is just more evidence that you are dishonest.



It doesn't say what you want to address.


The source which quoted the Smithsonian article is not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is what the Smithsonian article said. What is your problem with what the Smithsonian article said?

You still haven't clarified on what it is you're trying to say. You call me dishonest, yet you are the one who won't tell me what it is you're trying to say with your Genesis park link.

I've asked you at least 3 times now.

What does your source say and why did you post it?

Or are you unable to clarify?

You said "I don't care", you don't care about what? Your own source or claim?

Then you claim that it is I who do not care? What don't I care about? You won't clarify.

How do you expect to get anywhere in discerning truth if you are afraid to describe your own claims?

 

[Al Touthentop]

You still haven't clarified on what it is you're trying to say. You call me dishonest, yet you are the one who won't tell me what it is you're trying to say with your Genesis park link.

I was clear. You just won't address the content and instead want to argue about the link and what somebody said who I didn't quote. I don't care about his opinion. I care about what that Smithsonian article said. All your stomping of feet and temper tampering doesn't alter that in the slightest.

 

[Job 33:6]

I was clear. You just won't address the content and instead want to argue about the link and what somebody said who I didn't quote. I don't care about his opinion. I care about what that Smithsonian article said. All your stomping of feet and temper tampering doesn't alter that in the slightest.

I won't address what content? What content would you like me to address?

 

[Al Touthentop]

I won't address what content? What content would you like me to address?

LOL.. Keep pretending that the quote from the Smithsonian article is out of context, wasn't in support of my argument and that we at that point weren't arguing something specific. What acrobatics! What sophistry!

 

[Job 33:6]

@Al Touthentop

Here, I'll give an example of where we are headed, since you seem to want to avoid it.

"To the right is pictured the Zapata track, found in Permian limestone in New Mexico. The Permian is thought by evolutionary geologists to be over 250 million years old. Yet there is a clear fossil human footprint. "- your source (Genesis park).

But wait, this isn't actually discussed in the Smithsonian article.

So what am I to do with this? All I can do is go back to what I said several posts ago. You're feeding me third hand claims from religious institutions. This isn't from the Smithsonian at all.

 

[Job 33:6]

LOL.. Keep pretending that the quote from the Smithsonian article is out of context, wasn't in support of my argument and that we at that point weren't arguing something specific. What acrobatics! What sophistry!

See above post.

You aren't telling me what you think you see, and so I still do not know what you're trying to say with your source.

 

[Al Touthentop]

@Al Touthentop

Here, I'll give an example of where we are headed, since you seem to want to avoid it.

"To the right is pictured the Zapata track, found in Permian limestone in New Mexico. The Permian is thought by evolutionary geologists to be over 250 million years old. Yet there is a clear fossil human footprint. "- your source (Genesis park).

But wait, this isn't actually discussed in the Smithsonian article.

So what am I to do with this? All I can do is go back to what I said several posts ago. You're feeding me third hand claims from religious institutions. This isn't from the Smithsonian at all.

Amazing. You have completely misrepresented the post, quoted stuff I didn't quote and then want me to address that same stuff I didn't quote. Why don't you deal with the Smithsonian article's content that was actually quoted in the context of the discussion we were having about the fossil record? Because you can't that's why.

 

[Al Touthentop]

See above post.

You aren't telling me what you think you see, and so I still do not know what you're trying to say with your source.

I'm not so think as you drunk I am.

 

[Job 33:6]

Amazing. You have completely misrepresented the post, quoted stuff I didn't quote and then want me to address that same stuff I didn't quote. Why don't you deal with the Smithsonian article's content that was actually quoted in the context of the discussion we were having about the fossil record? Because you can't that's why.

Good let's go deeper.

"On one trackway, for example, a three-toed creature apparently took a few steps, then disappeared–as though it took off and flew. ‘We don’t know of any three-toed animals in the Permian,’ MacDonald pointed out. ‘And there aren’t supposed to be any birds.’ He’s got several tracks where creatures appear to be walking on their hind legs, others that look almost simian. On one pair of siltstone tablets, I notice some unusually large, deep and scary-looking footprints, each with five arched toe marks, like nails. I comment that they look just like bear tracks. ‘Yeah,’ MacDonald says reluctantly, ‘they sure do.’ Mammals evolved long after the Permian period, scientists agree, yet these tracks are clearly Permian.”

Three toed animals of course existed in the Permian, they're called reptiles.

The discussion then turns to bear-like tracks. Are there any pictures of these bear like tracks? Any figures or diagrams? And fossils associated with them?

The answer is "no" to all of the above. We are left...with nothing more than....thoughts.

is this what you wanted to show me?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Good let's go deeper.

"On one trackway, for example, a three-toed creature apparently took a few steps, then disappeared–as though it took off and flew. ‘We don’t know of any three-toed animals in the Permian,’ MacDonald pointed out. ‘And there aren’t supposed to be any birds.’ He’s got several tracks where creatures appear to be walking on their hind legs, others that look almost simian. On one pair of siltstone tablets, I notice some unusually large, deep and scary-looking footprints, each with five arched toe marks, like nails. I comment that they look just like bear tracks. ‘Yeah,’ MacDonald says reluctantly, ‘they sure do.’ Mammals evolved long after the Permian period, scientists agree, yet these tracks are clearly Permian.”

Three toed animals of course existed in the Permian, they're called reptiles.

The discussion then turns to bear-like tracks. Are there any pictures of these bear like tracks? Any figures or diagrams? And fossils associated with them?

The answer is "no" to all of the above. We are left...with nothing more than....thoughts.

is this what you wanted to show me?

So the Smithsonian reporter was misrepresenting fossils he witnessed?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Good let's go deeper.



The discussion then turns to bear-like tracks. Are there any pictures of these bear like tracks? Any figures or diagrams? And fossils associated with them?

Isn't it amazing how I predicted this was exactly how you would respond?

The Paluxy river prints are controversial. But there are other fossils, not so controversial. And I would propose that the failure of evolutionary theorists to address and revise their theories is just the sort of behavior that I would expect if a rabbit was found in the Cambrian fossil record. Deny, claim it's fake and then finally ignore it as if it doesn't exist.

The answer is "no" to all of the above. We are left...with nothing more than....thoughts.

is this what you wanted to show me?

Apparently the paleontologist he was interviewing was an idiot.

 

[Job 33:6]

So the Smithsonian reporter was misrepresenting fossils he witnessed?

The reporter never provided details on the fossils he witnessed. No photos, no measurements, no associated bones, no geospatial coordinates, no diagrams etc.

Theres no substance to statement.

Which should come to no surprise to us. The Smithsonian is more of a leisure reading type publication, it isn't an actual research article. Much like reading about Kim Kardashian and Kanye west, it's more of a fun read, than it is an actual study.

 

[Job 33:6]

The Paluxy river prints are controversial. But there are other fossils, not so controversial.

And nobody is calling anyone else an idiot. You just have to distinguish between something written for entertainment value, versus something written for the sake of scientific study.

What you provided to me is basically just empty commentary.

Let me give an example of what a research article looks like.