Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[Job 33:6]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2015.1063491?journalCode=gich20

See the above article. Note that it is initially published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints

Notice that there are detailed descriptions of the tracks. There are figures, drawings, high definition images, descriptions of locality, descriptions of formation, descriptions of the underlying bedding.

There is an introduction, an abstract, conclusions, trackway diagrams, associated fossil descriptions . Etc.

Now compare to your source...

What does your source have? It has a couple sentences about a few tracks that look like they may be bear tracks in the Permian and that's it.

This is the difference between a critical review and study versus Smithsonian leisure reading (more for fun), it's like a scientists version of E! Magazine.

And again, it doesn't mean that anyone is calling anyone else an idiot. It's just about the purpose and meaning and substance behind the article.

 

[Al Touthentop]

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.

LOL. He was interviewing a paleontologist who also was commenting on the fossils. What details do you think were missing anyway? That paleontologist was an idiot apparently, the fossil was a fake and you have a mind about as open as a closed bear trap and yet demand that others have an open mind.

But since you think none of this exists, you could look at the site yourself. Lots of pictures.

Prehistoric Trackways National Monument | Bureau of Land Management

 

[Job 33:6]

See post number 121^

 

[Al Touthentop]

And nobody is calling anyone else an idiot.

You are. You say the paleontologist was an idiot. It was he that said: ‘We don’t know of any three-toed animals in the Permian,’ MacDonald pointed out. ‘And there aren’t supposed to be any birds.’

And then you claimed that he was wrong and have spent several posts dismissing the article just as I predicted you would.

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

Now you're calling me an idiot too. I know what they look like and I've read a few and posted one to you which you completely ignored and refused to look at.

 

[Job 33:6]

But since you think none of this exists, you could look at the site yourself. Lots of pictures.

Prehistoric Trackways National Monument | Bureau of Land Management

I never said none existed. I'm just saying that your initial source had no substance.

Here you're moving in the right direction. You have graduated from E! Magazine to a government website. Still not quite a research article, but better than before.

So which fossil would you like to talk about? Or what on this website in particular would you like to critique?

 

[Job 33:6]

I never said none existed. I'm just saying that your initial source had no substance.

Here you're moving in the right direction. You have graduated from E! Magazine to a government website. Still not quite a research article, but better than before.

So which fossil would you like to talk about? Or what on this website in particular would you like to critique?

Actually, upon closer examination, this website doesn't appear to discuss fossils at all.

There is one photo of a track, then it talks about trails n such.

I'm assuming that you feel as though this fossil runs in contradiction with the theory of evolution?

 

[Al Touthentop]

I never said none existed. I'm just saying that your initial source had no substance.

Which is to say that nothing it reported was true.

Here you're moving in the right direction. You have graduated from E! Magazine to a government website. Still not quite a research article, but better than before.

Being disingenuous again. I don't remember ever posting anything from E! Magazine and I have posted a link to a research article. You're batting 0.

So which fossil would you like to talk about? Or what on this website in particular would you like to critique?

Critique? I gave you the link to see for yourself that the article talking about that location and its fossils obviously had substance.

You don't want to talk about anything at all. I'd say it's been a nice chat but it hasn't.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Actually, upon closer examination, this website doesn't appear to discuss fossils at all.

Well that's incorrect too, but I never said it discussed fossils. It is a BLM website that shows pictures of the site discussed. Just evidence that it exists. It's a real place and the Smithsonian article was talking about real fossils that existed at that location.

There is one photo of a track, then it talks about trails n such.

And there is a whole gallery of pictures of fossils from that site which are from the Permian era, apparently.

I'm assuming that you feel as though this fossil runs in contradiction with the theory of evolution?

No, I'm assuming that you are fluent in English and can understand easily the reason that I posted the link to the picture gallery there. I was wrong. My bad.

 

[Job 33:6]

Which is to say that nothing it reported was true.



Being disingenuous again. I don't remember ever posting anything from E! Magazine and I have posted a link to a research article. You're batting 0.



Critique? I gave you the link to see for yourself that the article talking about that location and its fossils obviously had substance.

You don't want to talk about anything at all. I'd say it's been a nice chat but it hasn't.

No, you never posted a research article. The Smithsonian article you posted is not peer reviewed.

Remember, you posted a Creationist website, which then linked to a smithsonian/leisure reading article, then you turned to a government website discussing Trailways for hiking.

Of course government websites are not scientific research articles either. Nor is "Genesis park".

Smithsonian: A monthly magazine that covers the arts, environment, sciences, history, and popular culture of the times, including news and stories that relate to current exhibits and events at the Smithsonian museums and elsewhere. Directed toward educated readers with diverse interests.

It's leisure reading, a magazine like something you pickup in the checkout line at the supermarket. Much like E! Magazine,It isn't peer reviewed research.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well that's incorrect too, but I never said it discussed fossils. It is a BLM website that shows pictures of the site discussed. Just evidence that it exists. It's a real place and the Smithsonian article was talking about real fossils that existed at that location.



And there is a whole gallery of pictures of fossils from that site which are from the Permian era, apparently.


No, I'm assuming that you are fluent in English and can understand easily the reason that I posted the link to the picture gallery there. I was wrong. My bad.

Ok, a picture gallery? What pictures do you believe are of interest and why?

I only see the one photo and it looks like a dimetrodon trackway, which is a large Permian reptile.

Prehistoric Trackways National Monument - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

Gone To Smell the Roses: Prehistoric Trackways National Monument

Geologic Tour of the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument

More identification as dimetrodon.

 

[Job 33:6]

This one is good as well:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3tfhLRiDejFQ5J6-F5g7nR&cshid=1586052426070

traces of a permian sea coast - Google Search

The article is titled 'traces of a Permian seacoast: prehistoric parkways national park".

Scroll to page 44, it's more dimetrodon.

 

[Job 33:6]

Last one, here is the more credible peer reviewed research on dimetrodon trackway of new new mexico.

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._NATIONAL_MONUMENT_SOUTH-CENTRAL_NEW_MEXICO_U

Page 9, photograph H.

 

[Jamdoc]

Something just came to mind on why it is SO important to understand that even though a biological process may have been the means, that we are all creations of God: IVF.
An IVF baby is conceived artificially, through the actions of people outside of a parent's marriage, it may even be a sperm or egg donor, or a surrogate mother. They are still a creation of God.
Going into the future, (and we have already had it happen in Godless China) there will be designer babies where their genes are manipulated by man for certain traits, does that make that child not a creation of God? God forbid! No, that child does not choose how they come into this world or what process started their biological life, but they are still loved by God as His creation.
Evolution, Genetic Engineering, IVF, even cloning, it doesn't matter how foreign and unnatural the process may seem, it is acts of producing life which is the domain of God and they are all creations of God.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Last one, here is the more credible peer reviewed research on dimetrodon trackway of new new mexico.

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._NATIONAL_MONUMENT_SOUTH-CENTRAL_NEW_MEXICO_U

Page 9, photograph H.

This paper quotes the very paleontologist that was being interviewed by the Smithsonian reporter. Congratulations on further confirmation that the interview was substantive.

"Material: There are almost 120 specimens showing undertracks of the ichnotaxon. Specimens with this kind of preservation have been described and figured extensively by previous workers (MacDonald, 1992, 1994, 1995;"

 

[Job 33:6]

This paper quotes the very paleontologist that was being interviewed by the Smithsonian reporter. Congratulations on further confirmation that the interview was substantive.

"Material: There are almost 120 specimens showing undertracks of the ichnotaxon. Specimens with this kind of preservation have been described and figured extensively by previous workers (MacDonald, 1992, 1994, 1995;"

And?

Notice how meaningless this has all become.

You posted a link to "Genesis park". Genesis park noted problematic fossils but didn't clarify.

We migrated to Genesis parks source. We came to discover that the source was a leisure reading monthly Magazine that also didn't actually speak with any clarity on these alleged problematic fossils. At best, we had one quote about a track that resembled a bears.

No photographs, no diagrams, no figures, no measurements, no associated bones, no details on locality etc.

At this stage in the conversation, we have nothing to work with.

We then migrated to a government website which provides details for trails. A website about a public park and not actually about fossils, though it did have a picture of a dimetrodon footprint. My best guess is that you think that these are the problematic footprints, but of course, dimetrodon footprints aren't problematic at all...

We migrated to a peer reviewed document describing dimetrodon foot tracks. Which again, are not problematic at all...

Now we come full circle and your response is that the publication on dimetrodon tracks cites the Smithsonian interviewee (but note that it doesn't cite the original Smithsonian article, rather it cites other research papers).

But what about the alleged mystery tracks? What are they? Where are they? Where are the photos? Were you referring to dimetrodon tracks? Are there diagrams or figures? The research I I noted that cites MacDonald doesn't describe problematic trackway (though it does describe dimetrodon trackway which were photographed in your government website and have 5 toes and do resemble bear tracks).

We are still left with a million questions about what the alleged problematic tracks were (assuming they weren't dimetrodon tracks).

After all this time, we still are left with many question marks. It's a demonstration of the emptiness of the original Genesis park post.

And you, as the poster of said Genesis park post, ideally ought to be able to provide answers on what you have shared. And if you can't, then your words are...for all practical purposes, empty.

And we could continue to dig. We could go through 100 more websites, magazines and research articles, but it would bring us back to the same conclusion time and time again. The fossil record is objectively a powerful piece of evidence in favor of the theory with no real substantive objections. Which is why macdonald himself supports the theory of evolution, regardless of what either of us thinks he might have saw or said.

 

[Job 33:6]

The truth is that, just as in the case of the dimetrodon tracks, 99% of Creationist argument's against evolution really do not have any objectively clear information.

With just about every other argument, if we simply ask questions about the very substance of the argument, it falls apart like a house of cards.

And for my next trick, I'll provide evidence for evolution as a counter claim.

 

[Al Touthentop]

What does your source have? It has a couple sentences about a few tracks that look like they may be bear tracks in the Permian and that's it.

Oooh! A size contest! Hand wavy response which is just a distraction from the original discussion!

 

[Gottservant]

I actually want culture to change in two ways:

1. I want Evolution to admit that it has limits (that micro-evolution cannot happen at the macro level)

2. I want Creation to demonstrate that with application, Evolution can be advanced beyond initial expectations - that is, that faith is effectual, for the carrying out of the steps of Evolution, in a more foundational way (that is better).

The whole question about "how did life begin" I believe is a fairy tale question, well handled by the slow, step by step description of Genesis (and repeated meaningfully in John). There is no conceivable reason that a human being should know every last detail, of his beginning, that is not in that self-same moment narcissism (on the verge of being sin).

The point is, we make ourselves vulnerable to vanity, when we pretend to know better than a simple description of our beginnings, that simply touches on why we find it hard, to reconcile ourselves to God: as though we could ever know what He knows!

I mean think about it: how would you defend your creation best, if what they believed about themselves, could lead them into sin? Wouldn't you tell them enough to get them going and keep them guessing about it from then on?

I think the question of where we came from, will be one of the most unpopular questions there are, in Heaven.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I think the question of where we came from, will be one of the most unpopular questions there are, in Heaven.

d

I think that once we make it, it will not be a question we care about. We were made, God favored us and we obeyed. There's no real benefit in knowing about the creation if it doesn't deal with God's love for us. Molecules and DNA and all of that are knowledge that won't in the end save us. That doesn't mean it isn't useful to us in the practical sense. It just has no benefit in the spiritual sense.