Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[jJIM THINNSEN]

No.
First, it was a dinosaur specialist who found the tooth, oddly worn to resemble a primate tooth.

Second, a mammal specialist quickly debunked the idea.

Third, it wasn't a pig. That's significant because it tells me you never actually read the literature on it, but just cut and pasted from another creationist who got everything wrong.

If you'd take the time to actually do your research, you wouldn't be having little disasters like this.

"
We are given a pigs TOOTH as evidence for Ape / Man transitional.. Yes a PIGS TOOTH!!!

"No."

YES!!

(For our readers) Dont you just hate being wrong all the time against me?


Riots in Egypt were a feature of 1921. So was Greece’s disregard of the League of Nations when it waged war on Turkey on 14 October. By Christmas of the same year the Irish Free State was set up by Peace Treaty with Britain.

Amid such history-making world events of 1921, over in Snake Creek quarry in western Nebraska, USA, geologist Harold J. Cook was quietly studying the Pliocene rock beds in Sioux County. Nothing very newsworthy here.

Then on Saturday, 25 February 1922, Cook contacted Dr Henry F. Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. ‘I have had here, for some little time,’ Cook told Osbon, ‘a molar tooth from the upper or Hipparion beds, that very closely approaches the human type.’The Antiquity of Man, Vol. II, Williams and Norgate, London, p. 475, 1925." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">1 When Osborn received the tooth, he excitedly dashed off a note to Cook. ‘The instant your package arrived’, he said, ‘I sat down with the tooth, in my window, and I said to myself: It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid … . We may cool down tomorrow, but it looks to me as if the first anthropoid ape of America had been found’.Ibid." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">2

But the next day there was no cooling down. A leading tooth authority, Dr W.K. Gregory, declared that Osborn was right. He agreed that the Nebraskan tooth was an upper molar from an anthropoid. They believed this indicated the first find of man’s ancestors in America.

Family pedigree?
In April 1922 Osborn proudly presented the tooth to the world. The Illustrated London News of 24 June published articles, illustrations, and ‘a pedigree of the human family’ drawn up by experts. It gave pride of place to this new genus called Hesperopithecus (which the report said meant ‘ape-man of the Western world’). The species name became haroldcookii, after its discoverer. Artist A. Forestier drew an elaborate and imaginative reconstruction of this creature in the ancient wild, which was featured as a double-page spread in The Illustrated London News.The Illustrated London News, 24 June 1922, pp. 942–3." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">3

The Illustrated London News in 1922 featured an artists’ impression of the newly discovered ‘ape-man’ Hesperopithecus (‘Nebraska man’). The whole scene was imaginary—all that had been found was what turned out to be nothing more than a pig’s tooth.

The detailed sketch showed two hesperopithecines looking like some kind of club-wielding missing links. Extinct animals lined the artist’s landscape. One hesperopithecine was shown crouching after seemingly catching an extinct rodent by hand. The artist had supplied the shape of the creatures’ ears and nose, hair, type of tool being used … all imagined from a single, rather worn, tooth. ‘Unlike Columbus,’ the report said, ‘Hesperopithecus is believed to have reached America by land, travelling from Asia by “a land bridge enjoying a warm climate”.’

Something puzzling
Yet there was something peculiar and puzzling about this ‘anthropoid’ molar. It bore some resemblance to a tooth of a chimpanzee, it had features reminiscent of another disputed ‘apeman’ tooth, and some similarity to the molars of man. But it clearly differed from them all. One authority in fact thought the tooth belonged to an extinct bear.Nature, Vol. cix, p. 750, 1922." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">4 Another to an extinct horse.Grundzuge der Palaeontologie, 1923 (cited in Keith’s Antiquity of Man, p. 476)." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">5 Some others, including well-known British anatomist Professor Grafton Elliot Smith, gave complete support to Osborn’s anthropoid identification. Sir Arthur Keith, who was allegedly exposed in 1990 as the perpetrator of the Piltdown fraud, withheld final judgment. But he said he doubted ’the primate nature’ of this ‘Nebraska man.’6

There was certainly no general agreement about the apeman status of this tooth. For one thing, its crown was very worn. The dentine was exposed on its central area, and it had only imperfect cusps, making it difficult to identify. Keith said of the cusps: ‘They have undergone certain retrogressive changes which are most frequently seen in third molar teeth, the least reliable when we come to estimate affinity.’ Ibid." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">7

Conflict among experts
Despite this substantial doubt and conflict of opinion among the experts of the day, the public clearly had been led to think that Hesperopithecus, ‘Nebraska man’, was a major evolutionary discovery. Here indeed seemed proof that a creature on the evolutionary path to humanity once lived in ancient America. After looking at the family scene created by The Illustrated London News artist, could any average reader doubt the testimony of this tooth? By 1925, Osborn said that ‘every suggestion made by scientific sceptics was weighed and found wanting.’Missing Links, Book Club Associates/William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, London, p. 110, 1981." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">8 Was Osborn right?

To shine more light on the controversy, a fossil-hunter named Thompson headed off to the Snake Creek quarry where Harold Cook had found the original tooth. He was on the trail of more specimens of ‘Nebraska man’.

It was not long before Thompson had accumulated several teeth like Cook’s original. Some of these were in much better condition and were quite unworn. There was no doubt they had come from the same creature as had Cook’s. There was also no doubt now that they had not come from either a man or an ape. They were all shown to have come from the jaw of an extinct pig!Ibid." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">9

‘Nebraska man’ was not accepted by many of the leading experts who studied it, or its cast, at the time. Yet the public was given the impression that this tooth was a major piece of evidence for evolution.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that this pig’s tooth incident could not fool anyone who does not believe in evolution—either then or now. A burning desire to prove evolution or disprove God’s creation is what leads otherwise intelligent scientists and skeptics to fail to question evolutionary assumptions adequately. But faith in the Creator-God of the Bible and His Word, which tells us that man and all other major kinds of creatures were created—they did not evolve—is the Creation 13(2) antidote to being taken in by such astounding evolutionary claims.

There is no indisputable evidence that man has ever evolved from apelike creatures. ‘Nebraska man’ is merely one warning to all not to accept evolutionary interpretations as evolutionary facts.

References

1. Sir Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, Vol. II, Williams and Norgate, London, p. 475, 1925.
2. Ibid.
3. The Illustrated London News, 24 June 1922, pp. 942–3.
4. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, Nature, Vol. cix, p. 750, 1922.
5. Professor Schlosser, in Zittel’s Grundzuge der Palaeontologie, 1923 (cited in Keith’s Antiquity of Man, p. 476).
6. Ref. l, p. 476.
7. Ibid.
8. John Reader, Missing Links, Book Club Associates/William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, London, p. 110, 1981.
9. Ibid.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Your belief seems incompatible with Darwin's attribution of life to God.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Perhaps you should spend a little more time learning about the subject.
You were misled by that, too. Darwin, when he formulated his theory, was an orthodox Anglican. As you just learned, Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. I realize that was a shock, and contrary to the stories you were told, but it's a fact. Try to find a way to live with it.



Darwin obviously is the expert on his theory, and as you learned, he attributed the origin of life to God. Atheists, like creationists have an ideological axe to grind, wanting science and God to be incompatible. But most of us know better. Darwin says God created the first living things. And atheists and creationists get upset about it.

Atheists and YE creationists are opposed to God the Creator.

"Atheists and YE creationists are opposed to God the Creator"

Haha What's wrong? Projectionism isn't really your strong suit is it sport?

No.. It's just that we are opposed to YOUR god of Evolutionism... We believe that The Judeo Christian God of the Bible was OUR creator.. You must worship some other god we dont know about.. What is his name Just out of curiosity? It sure isnt the God of the Bible.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Can't be. Because it's limited by its very methodology to the natural world, it can say nothing at all about the supernatural. It can neither affirm nor deny anything supernatural. Hence, it can't be atheistic. Science can't comment on God.

But scientists can.

Another logical fallacy.. This one of Reification! Lol..

Science cant comment on ANYTHING!!!.. I can explain it for educational purposes...

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

No.
First, it was a dinosaur specialist who found the tooth, oddly worn to resemble a primate tooth.

Oh.. So a "Dinosaur specialist found it.. Here... Let me teach you a new term... Non Sequitur.. (Look it up for extra credit!

"Second, a mammal specialist quickly debunked the idea."

Hmm.. from 1922 when it was used at the Scopes trial in 1925?? 3 Years is "quickly debunked"? Well I guess since Haeckels Fraudulent drawings remained in the textbooks over ONE HUNDRED YEARS after everyone knew they were a fraud!! I see what you mean.. 3 years is really fast! Lol


"Third, it wasn't a pig. That's significant because it tells me you never actually read the literature on it, but just cut and pasted from another creationist who got everything wrong."

"Third it wasnt a pig"

LOL... So I just should have said Peccary instead so nobody understands right? LOL

ANYWAY... YOU ARE.... (Drum Roll...)

WRONG AGAIN..

The Peccary is ALSO KNOWN as a SKUNK PIG... Obviously you DIDNT KNOW THAT!! Every single time you think you are "correcting" me it ends of backfiring and it is good for you to learn from it... You also need to learn to trust me on this subject.. As I said.. It is my specialty exposing the fairytale of Evolutionism and it is something that I enjoy doing very much as I am very good at what I do... You are right in my backyard here and I hope you keep on responding as it give me more material for others to read...

"If you'd take the time to actually do your research, you wouldn't be having little disasters like this."

LOL.... Our readers can see for themselves that it is actually 180 degrees the OPPOSITE... Cant make this up can we...

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

"The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."

(Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

If you find it confusing, you could use Darwin's term; "descent with modification." He only used "evolved" once in his book. This is why I suggested that you go and learn what the term means. You chose to ignore my suggestion,and so you're still flailing around in the dark. Here's the scientific term: "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." This changed when Darwin's theory was modified by the new science of genetics.



...you've been whacking away at a bogeyman who doesn't exist. Yep.



Can't remember enjoying this kind of conversation more.

"If you find it confusing, you could use Darwin's term; "descent with modification"

Right.. Which of course is MEANINGLESS.. It could mean literally ANYTHING!!! (But that is kind of the point isn't it?) After all, it sounds so much better than saying to yourself "I am an ape that slowly descended from sea sponges and am related to cockroaches bananas elephants and jellyfish.. .

Nah, that is too graphic and embarrassing.. Better to just say "change over time" and move on.. Ahahahahha..

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."

(Dr. David Berlinsky)

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Your belief seems incompatible with Darwin's attribution of life to God.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Perhaps you should spend a little more time learning about the subject.
You were misled by that, too. Darwin, when he formulated his theory, was an orthodox Anglican. As you just learned, Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. I realize that was a shock, and contrary to the stories you were told, but it's a fact. Try to find a way to live with it.



Darwin obviously is the expert on his theory, and as you learned, he attributed the origin of life to God. Atheists, like creationists have an ideological axe to grind, wanting science and God to be incompatible. But most of us know better. Darwin says God created the first living things. And atheists and creationists get upset about it.

Atheists and YE creationists are opposed to God the Creator.

BTW.. Did you read this article? It is a good one!
Jerry says that Oval-Earthers are guilty of Cognitive Dissonance.. Take heart.. At least he didn't call them "Barking Mad" like your hero Richard Dawkins did..

Evolution and atheism: Best friends forever: Jerry Coyne

By Jerry Coyne

Here's my thesis for the evening: The fact of evolution is not only inherently atheistic, it is inherently anti-theistic. It goes against the notion that there is a god.
Accepting evolution and science tends to promote the acceptance of atheism. Now, it doesn't always, of course. There are many religious people who accept evolution. I would say they're guilty of cognitive dissonance, or at least of some kind of watery deism.


Evolution and atheism: Best friends forever: Jerry Coyne - Freedom From Religion Foundation

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

No.
First, it was a dinosaur specialist who found the tooth, oddly worn to resemble a primate tooth.

Oh.. So a "Dinosaur specialist found it.. Here... Let me teach you a new term... Non Sequitur.. (Look it up for extra credit!

"Second, a mammal specialist quickly debunked the idea."

Hmm.. from 1922 when it was used at the Scopes trial in 1925?? 3 Years is "quickly debunked"? Well I guess since Haeckels Fraudulent drawings remained in the textbooks over ONE HUNDRED YEARS after everyone knew they were a fraud!! I see what you mean.. 3 years is really fast! Lol


"Third, it wasn't a pig. That's significant because it tells me you never actually read the literature on it, but just cut and pasted from another creationist who got everything wrong."

"Third it wasnt a pig"

LOL... So I just should have said Peccary instead so nobody understands right? LOL

ANYWAY... YOU ARE.... (Drum Roll...)

WRONG AGAIN..

The Peccary is ALSO KNOWN as a SKUNK PIG... Obviously you DIDNT KNOW THAT!! Every single time you think you are "correcting" me it ends of backfiring and it is good for you to learn from it... You also need to learn to trust me on this subject.. As I said.. It is my specialty exposing the fairytale of Evolutionism and it is something that I enjoy doing very much as I am very good at what I do... You are right in my backyard here and I hope you keep on responding as it gives me more material for others to read...

"If you'd take the time to actually do your research, you wouldn't be having little disasters like this."

LOL.... Our readers can see for themselves that it is actually 180 degrees the OPPOSITE... Cant make this up can we...

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

"The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."

(Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

The Barbarian said: ↑
Yep. For example, we see some marine creatures like Limulus, who have lived in very constant environments for hundreds of millions of years, and they've changed very little. On the other hand, when a population moves into a new environment, natural selection rapidly changes them, like those lizards observed to have evolved a new digestive organ in a few decades. Darwin pointed out that this would change the pacing of evolution. Would you like me to show you this?"

Sure! What is the make and model of your time machine? I would love to go on a ride so you could "show me"..

See above. It's an integral part of Darwinian theory, and as you see, he correctly predicted this. Natural selection, for a well-fitted population in a constant environment, will actually prevent evolution. "

As I pointed out.. Evolutionism "Predicts" EVERYTHING!!!!

"This goes back to my original point; if you knew what evolutionary theory is, you'd be a lot more effective discussing it"

Actually, the religion of Evolutionism isnt a theory.. Merely a philosophical belief in Metaphysical Naturalism.. How quickly people forget!!

"Yep. For example, we see some marine creatures like Limulus, who have lived in very constant environments for hundreds of millions of years, and they've changed very little"

Yeah.. Like comb jellyfish!! You know, over the course of "500 million years" while SOME comb jellyfish were evolving into humans, OTHER comb jellyfish didnt evolve AT ALL!!! The religion of Evolutionism is really amazing isnt it!!

Of course, it would NEVER EVER occur to Oval-Earthers that by FAR the most parsimonious explanation is that in the beginning God, like he said he did, created comb jellyfish who have ALWAYS been comb jellies and he created Humans who have ALWAYS been humans and all of this Evolution nonsense is just a bunch of garbage... What is it? A vested interest? Hope it's worth it.. But no one is getting fooled here.. Have a wonderful evening! Best wishes JT

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

And I would ask the same of them as I have often asked here, how is your model supported by scripture? What are you basing this teaching on? What explanation do you give for Romans 5 of no death before sin and how does this work with evolution? If God making Adam from the dust is a parable what is it teaching and what scripture support do you have for this? If Adam is an allegory how did he die at 930? What is your teaching and explanations for those and all the other verses that contradict millions of years of death? Basically, what is your doctrine?
It's no good saying
"There is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution"
You can't make a statement like that and just leave it like that. Anyone could say anything in that case.
"provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution."
Lol, what ^ does that mean?

"provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution."
Lol, what ^ does that mean?

GREAT QUESTION!! BIZARRE.. IS THERE SOME NEW HYBRID VERSION OF "EVOLUTION" THAT SOMEONE JUST MADE UP?

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)

 

[coffee4u]

"provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution."
Lol, what ^ does that mean?

GREAT QUESTION!! BIZARRE.. IS THERE SOME NEW HYBRID VERSION OF "EVOLUTION" THAT SOMEONE JUST MADE UP?

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)

My unpopular view is that evolution is a much bigger deception by the enemy and that it may well later tie in with 'aliens' (demons) coming from another 'planet' to 'rescue' poor humanity. Once a person believes in evolution they often believe in aliens because why not? If someone holds that life evolved here by chance random processes why couldn't life have evolved elsewhere? If it did and they came here they must be so much more advanced then us, so we better listen to what they have to say. Because again people would much rather believe in cool aliens than demons.
Perfect set up for lying signs and wonders and for the rapture to be blamed on alien abductions.

So I don't expect it to go anywhere.

1 Timothy 4:1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

2 Thessalonians 2:9
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie,

Matthew 24:24
For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

It must be a very well done deception to deceive the elect, of which evolution is by far the biggest one ever pulled.

 

[Radagast]

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

And everyone who accepts theistic evolution says yes, yes, yes to those questions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yep. For example, we see some marine creatures like Limulus, who have lived in very constant environments for hundreds of millions of years, and they've changed very little. On the other hand, when a population moves into a new environment, natural selection rapidly changes them, like those lizards observed to have evolved a new digestive organ in a few decades. Darwin pointed out that this would change the pacing of evolution. Would you like me to show you this?"

Sure! What is the make and model of your time machine? I would love to go on a ride so you could "show me"..

It's called "the fossil record." As you now realize, even honest creationists admit:
"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

See above. It's an integral part of Darwinian theory, and as you see, he correctly predicted this. Natural selection, for a well-fitted population in a constant environment, will actually prevent evolution. "

As I pointed out.. Evolutionism "Predicts" EVERYTHING!!!!

Nope. You were lied to about that, too. For example, the theory does not predict a feature in any organism exclusively for the benefit of a different organism. It doesn't predict the evolution of a complex feature that could not have appeared by gradual changes, each of them beneficial to the organism. It would be great if primates could have two more hands. But it won't happen, because the intermediate stages would not be useful. It doesn't predict feathers on mammals... (very long list)

Again, because you don't have a clue about evolution or even the theory that explains it, you're still struggling. Set your pride aside and go learn about it. Or you could do it the hard way by goofing up and being reminded. Youir choice.

Actually, the religion of Evolutionism isnt a theory..

"Evolutionism" isn't evolutionary theory. It's not evolution. It's not really a religion. Rather, it's a doctrine of YE creationism, which usually isn't a religion; very occasionally, you'll find a creationist who declares creationism is an essential doctrine for salvation. For those folks, their doctrine of "evolutionism" has become part of a new religion of creationism.

Merely a philosophical belief in Metaphysical Naturalism..

Here, you've confused science with ontological naturalism. Science is methodologically naturalistic; it can only examine natural phenomenon, and neither confirm nor deny anything supernatural. It is why, for example, Darwin could find out about natural selection, while still believing God created the first living things.

But you already learned that. How quickly people forget!!

"Yep. For example, we see some marine creatures like Limulus, who have lived in very constant environments for hundreds of millions of years, and they've changed very little"

Yeah.. Like comb jellyfish!! You know, over the course of "500 million years" while SOME comb jellyfish were evolving into humans,

Humans evolved from other primates. You forget that, too. Comb jellyfish are far too evolved in their own way to give rise to chordates, much less humans. You've probably run into scientists who assume all creationists are stupid. It's not true, but statements like yours are why they sometimes think so. I realize you don't see why it's such a woofer, but again, if you'd learn a little about it, you'd see why.

OTHER comb jellyfish didnt evolve AT ALL!!!

I'm not aware of any that haven't. They're quite a diverse group, and they continue to evolve in different ways. Your religion of "evolutionism" seems to have blinded you to the facts. Or perhaps you just cut and pasted that one and never looked at it at all.

Ironically, geneticists have discovered that comb jellyfish were the first major group of animals to branch off from all other animals. And they have diversified remarkably since that time. It does bring up an issue because sponges are even simpler animals, and are more closely related to all other animals genetically, than are comb jellyfish. So you were way, way off. It was an interesting problem, since ctenophores (comb jellies) have nerves and sponges do not. Then it was discovered that different genes code for nerves in ctenophores. Their "nerves' are like the Purkunje fibers in your heart. Function like nerves, but evolved differently.

Again, your religion of "evolutionism" won't let you accept facts like that.

The religion of Evolutionism is really amazing isnt it!!

Yes. I think creationists, if they'd let go of their religious belief in evolutionism, would do a lot better. Some of them have. You could, too.

Of course, it would NEVER EVER occur to Oval-Earthers that by FAR the most parsimonious explanation is that in the beginning God, like he said he did, created comb jellyfish who have ALWAYS been comb jellies and he created Humans who have ALWAYS been humans and all of this Evolution nonsense is just a bunch of garbage...

It's highly disrespectful to put words in God's mouth. I wish you'd stop it. He never said any of that. It's just your attempt to correct Him.

 

[The Barbarian]

If someone holds that life evolved here by chance random processes why couldn't life have evolved elsewhere?

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. Maybe it would be a good idea to know something about it, before making any decisions?

 

[The Barbarian]

And everyone who accepts theistic evolution says yes, yes, yes to those questions.

Actually, even some who don't accept evolution say "yes" to those questions:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf

The truth about evolution

 

[The Barbarian]

First, it was a dinosaur specialist who found the tooth, oddly worn to resemble a primate tooth.

No.
Oh.. So a "Dinosaur specialist found it..

Yep. It did superficially look like a primate tooth, but...

"Second, a mammal specialist quickly debunked the idea."

Hmm.. from 1922 when it was used at the Scopes trial in 1925??

The popular press got wind of it, and among the public, the story was still circulating long after scientist figured it out.

Well I guess since Haeckels Fraudulent drawings remained in the textbooks over ONE HUNDRED YEARS after everyone knew they were a fraud!!

Creationists are infuriated that textbooks started using photographs of actual embryos that showed the same structures Haeckle found. I used to review science texts. Perhaps you can give me the names of the textbooks from the last half century that showed Haeckel's drawings as evidence for evolution? Do you honestly think they did that? I haven't seen every one of them, but I've see a lot of them. What do you have?

Third, it wasn't a pig. That's significant because it tells me you never actually read the literature on it, but just cut and pasted from another creationist who got everything wrong.

From your link:
Despite this substantial doubt and conflict of opinion among the experts of the day, the public clearly had been led to think that Hesperopithecus, ‘Nebraska man’, was a major evolutionary discovery.
...
‘Nebraska man’ was not accepted by many of the leading experts who studied it, or its cast, at the time. Yet the public was given the impression that this tooth was a major piece of evidence for evolution.

Did you not even read it?

LOL... So I just should have said Peccary instead so nobody understands right?

Don't feel bad. A lot of creationists have cut and pasted from that story. You're far from the first. But I'm pleased you went and looked it up this time. Good start, keep that up.

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW.. Did you read this article? It is a good one!

It's another atheist, trying to make science incompatible with Christianity. Some days, evangelical atheists seem pretty much like evangelical creationists, don't they? They both share the same worldview.

Jerry says that Oval-Earthers are guilty of Cognitive Dissonance.. Take heart.. At least he didn't call them "Barking Mad" like your hero Richard Dawkins did..

Sounds more like Dawkins is your hero. If you find that the beliefs of atheists more more compatible with your beliefs than are the beliefs of Christians, maybe that's a pretty good clue for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you find it confusing, you could use Darwin's term; "descent with modification." He only used "evolved" once in his book. This is why I suggested that you go and learn what the term means. You chose to ignore my suggestion,and so you're still flailing around in the dark. Here's the scientific term: "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." This changed when Darwin's theory was modified by the new science of genetics.

Right.. Which of course is MEANINGLESS..

A third grader could figure it out. Succeeding generations become different than the populations from which they came. Doesn't seem very complex to me.

It could mean literally ANYTHING!!!

No, it pretty much means just one things. Succeeding generations become different than the populations from which they came.

After all, it sounds so much better than saying to yourself "I am an ape that slowly descended from sea sponges[/quote]

Sorry, humans evolved from other primates. Sponges are off on a branch by themselves. You forgot again.

and am related to cockroaches bananas elephants and jellyfish.. .

So far, genetics says all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

Nah, that is too graphic and embarrassing...

God says living things were brought forth from the Earth. Set your pride aside, and let it be His way.

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."

(Dr. David Berlinsky)

David Berlinski is an American author, having written books about mathematics and the history of science as well as fiction.
David Berlinski - Wikipedia

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
Dr. Kurt Wise.
Kurt Wise is a YE creationist, and a PhD in paleontology

Guess which creationist wins?

Berlinksy knows no more than you do about it. Wise is actually familiar with the evidence, and honestly admits the truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Can't be. Because it's limited by its very methodology to the natural world, it can say nothing at all about the supernatural. It can neither affirm nor deny anything supernatural. Hence, it can't be atheistic. Science can't comment on God.

But scientists can.

Another logical fallacy.. This one of Reification! Lol..

Your fallacy is to assume that because science is limited to the natural world, scientists are also limited. But that is an obvious fallacy.

Plumbing can't address anything but plumbing issues either. But plumbers are limited thereby.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Atheists and YE creationists are opposed to God the Creator"

Haha What's wrong? Projectionism isn't really your strong suit is it sport?

Projection seems to be your strong suite. It's just that we are opposed to your doctrine of "Evolutionism." And not all creationists have made a idol of "evolutionism." For some reason, you've done that. It's one of the reasons you keep running into walls here; you've made up a new doctrine called "evolutionism", and confused it with evolutionary theory. It's holding you back.

And yes, it's ironic that so many "creationists" are riled at the notion of God as the Creator, and want to demote Him to a mere "designer." It fits the fact that creationists and atheists find so much common ground when it comes to science. Not all creationists, mind. Just the really hard-core ones.

We believe that The Judeo Christian God of the Bible was OUR creator.

It's good that you still admit that much. But you'd be better off if you forgot about your new doctrine of "evolutionism." You can't worship that idol and God at the same time.

BTW, it's a major offense to question the faith of other Christians here. Try to do better.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

And everyone who accepts theistic evolution says yes, yes, yes to those questions.

Since "theistic evolution" implies that there was a supernatural intelligence agent (God) involved in the process, What is the identity of this unknown "god of evolution"? Does it have a name?Do you know? Because it sure isn't the Judeo Christian God of the Bible.. I can go into further detail if you like. Regards JT


"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental
Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.” “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist


"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.
Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." G. Richard Bozarth,


"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it—
the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse).


"The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.'"""

Frank Zindler

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins