Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[Tomk80]

Hey, it was just an idea

And let's be honest here. It makes exactly as much, if not more, sense as the stuff AV routinely makes up on this forum.

 

[verysincere]

Because reality contradicts the Scriptures on so many levels; as well as reality has so many dead-ends.

Occasionally AV shows his true colors.

Those of us Christ-followers who affirm the Biblical text consider it fully in harmony with reality. (The real words of real people conveying the reality they considered in real times in history.) It is only the TRADITIONS of some Christian sects which separates their interpretations of the Bible as if they demand a a non-reality.

 

[verysincere]

Then I'll take the "fact" that the Flood was just a global one with a grain of salt, if you haven't a clue where what is.

I DO know where it was. The Genesis text says that the ark came to rest in the mountains in Ararat. Ararat was the name of the place!

But isn't AV's "logic" interesting? "Somebody says that the Bible doesn't tell us the modern day location on the earth where Noah's ark came to rest----therefore I will assume that the flood was global."

And that probably explains how he pulled "New Jersey" out of thin air. AV is thinking, "Nobody knows the location so I'll declare it New Jersey and make it MY REALITY."

Indeed, that "process" explains a LOT of AV's claims. He constructs his own reality to fit whatever he wishes----and that is why he says "evidence can take a hike!"

 

[KWCrazy]

[/COLOR]

We do not see a "mature state". We see billions of years of history in those distant stars.
The process that formed our genome was evolution,
These are clear evidences of shared ancestry, and you are trying to ignore them.
You are deifying a man written text.
They even say right in the Bible that they were written by men. It's no secret.

Did Jesus tell his followers to interpret the Bible so that it was contradicted by the facts found in reality?

You and I will never reach consensus.

 

[CabVet]

You and I will never reach consensus.

Neither will creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

New Jersey? Why do you think that?

174

 

[46AND2]

174

Are you saying gopher wood is the same thing as pine wood?Specifically North American pine, exclusively? How do you know that?

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by 46AND2

New Jersey? Why do you think that?
​

174

Keep in mind that one of AV's slogans is "Evidence can take a hike!" He doesn't care that various water-proofing tars were common throughout the planet long before New Jersey got its name.

The word translated "pitch" in the Noah account is most likely the same kind of pitch which the ancient Greeks used on their ships, the ancient Egyptians used in sealing some types of mummies, and that the "Forests of Lebanon" in the Bible were famous for: various natural "tars" produced by burning resinous woods.

So why would AV decide to pick "New Jersey" rather than "North Carolina" ("the Tarheel State") rather than the many lands actually MENTIONED in the Bible and famous for their pitch production? Easy. He decided that it represents the most bizarrely ridiculous answer---and therefore likely to get the most attention. (Yes, one might think that he would choose a place name mentioned in his 1611 KJV Bible and which made the most sense through a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible. But no. Pulling an idea out of thin air, devoid of evidence, is his delight.)

[And by the way, AV claims that the earth was very different before the flood. So how does he know that New Jersey would have been a prime tree-pitch production area in the days of Noah, pre-flood? Hasn't he told us in the past that we have no reason to extrapolate today's conditions---and even scientific laws and physical constants---into the past? Yet, that is exactly what he is doing here. Why? To get more attention.]

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Keep in mind that one of AV's slogans is "Evidence can take a hike!" He doesn't care that various water-proofing tars were common throughout the planet long before New Jersey got its name.

The word translated "pitch" in the Noah account is most likely the same kind of pitch which the ancient Greeks used on their ships, the ancient Egyptians used in sealing some types of mummies, and that the "Forests of Lebanon" in the Bible were famous for: various natural "tars" produced by burning resinous woods.

So why would AV decide to pick "New Jersey" rather than "North Carolina" ("the Tarheel State") rather than the many lands actually MENTIONED in the Bible and famous for their pitch production? Easy. He decided that it represents the most bizarrely ridiculous answer---and therefore likely to get the most attention. (Yes, one might think that he would choose a place name mentioned in his 1611 KJV Bible and which made the most sense through a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible. But no. Pulling an idea out of thin air, devoid of evidence, is his delight.)

[And by the way, AV claims that the earth was very different before the flood. So how does he know that New Jersey would have been a prime tree-pitch production area in the days of Noah, pre-flood? Hasn't he told us in the past that we have no reason to extrapolate today's conditions---and even scientific laws and physical constants---into the past? Yet, that is exactly what he is doing here. Why? To get more attention.]

Perhaps he's xenophobic. It would explain why he so desperately insists that the first man and woman lived in America and spoke English, even when his claim is supported by neither evidence or scripture.

Just speculation, AV. If you really aren't xenophobic and you are offended by my entertaining of the possibility, I sincerely apologize.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps he's xenophobic. It would explain why he so desperately insists that the first man and woman lived in America and spoke English, even when his claim is supported by neither evidence or scripture.

Try China.

I also believe he lived in [what is now] China.

...

Just speculation, AV. If you really aren't xenophobic and you are offended by my entertaining of the possibility, I sincerely apologize.

Ain't no thang.

No, I'm not xenophobic; but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Try China.

My apologies. I seem to have confused Adam and Noah for a second.

That's embarrassing.

 

[verysincere]

My apologies. I seem to have confused Adam and Noah for a second.

That's embarrassing.

We all have our eccentricities.

Now with me, I insist that Noah was just his nickname and his father had originally named him "Sue", knowing that it would toughen him for up for eventually preaching to those nasty crowds that came to watch the ark construction spectacle. You see, I think that Noah got his pitch from New Jersey because he grew up in Trenton. And Noah called it "pitch" because after visiting the baseball museum at Coopertown, NY, Noah started hiding some in his glove in order put an extra spin on his curve ball.

And how do I know all of this? I noticed that ignoring all evidence saves me a LOT of hard work having to investigate facts and studying the data. So I just say whatever comes to mind that seems likely to get noticed by readers. It saves a LOT of time!

(And by the way, I figure Adam must have spoken Tahitian. How do I know that? Eden was a paradise and Tahiti is its own lush paradise. See how that works?)

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

We all have our eccentricities.

Now with me, I insist that Noah was just his nickname and his father had originally named him "Sue", knowing that it would toughen him for up for eventually preaching to those nasty crowds that came to watch the ark construction spectacle. You see, I think that Noah got his pitch from New Jersey because he grew up in Trenton. And Noah called it "pitch" because after visiting the baseball museum at Coopertown, NY, Noah started hiding some in his glove in order put an extra spin on his curve ball.

And how do I know all of this? I noticed that ignoring all evidence saves me a LOT of hard work having to investigate facts and studying the data. So I just say whatever comes to mind that seems likely to get noticed by readers. It saves a LOT of time!

(And by the way, I figure Adam must have spoken Tahitian. How do I know that? Eden was a paradise and Tahiti is its own lush paradise. See how that works?)

As my fellow high-schoolers would say, "He be jonin'!"

 

[USincognito]

The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.

Oh my. This is just another shining example of why Darwinismrefuted.com is one of the worst Creationist sites on the Internet.

Check out this blog entry. The reason why I link to it is for the numerous historical phylogenies that really don't change that much over the last ~150 years or so.

Hyraxes aren't rabbit like. They actually look more rodent-like, but are, in fact, more closely related to elephants than to rodents, rabbits or horses.

As fare as being "nearly identical to Eohippus, this Talk Origins page has been up for 10 years so I don't know how the folks at Darwinism Refuted missed it.
Hyracotherium and Hyrax

 

[USincognito]

It is NOT incorrect! Pasteur showed that life comes only from life.

Continuing to repeat trite plattitudes isn't helping you. Pasteur's experiment only showed, as you have already been corrected, that fully formed, extant beings don't spontaneously emerge from mud, cloth/grain or barnacles. It also showed that in a sterile environment, fully formed, extant mold, fungi, flies and rodents don't spontaneously generate. None of these facts have anything to do with abiogenesis.

You aren't mentioning that he bucked "science" in the process, and by providing a perfect environment for new life...

I'm not mentioning that because he didn't provide a perfect environment for new life. He created a sterile environment and no fully formed, extant mold, fungi, flies or rodents spontaneously generated. That has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

For 150 years science has been trying to prove that something can "evolve" into something else. It never has.

It always has. Since the advent of life 3.5 billion years ago, it has been changing a little each generation and in each lineage. Some of those lineages, like bacteria, are wildly diverse these days, but haven't changed much in ~3 billion years. Others, like animals, have both diversified and changed vast amounts in that time.

Common descent is falsified by the very fact that it has no proof, only comparable DNA in plants and animals with the same Creator.

You keep using the word proof which tells us you don't know anything about the scientific method.
You keep asserting there's no evidence (the word you're actually looking for) for X Y or Z, and when provided evidence for X Y and Z, ignore it and keep asserting there's no evidence.
And the last part is an ad hoc assertion with no scientific or explanatory value.

I can make tacos, burritos, tostados, fajitas or taco salad with the exact same ingredients. The only difference is the structure and appearance of each.

Mexican food isn't life and cannot be placed into a phylogeny. This is a failed analogy from the start.

We have one Creator and one perfect blueprint for life.

Ad hoc, and we have a great blueprint for life represented by the dual nested hierarchies of genetics and morphology. The only only explanation for that is common descent.

In that structure, humans have 25% of the same DNA as a daffodil.

And this assertion has 100% the same chemicals as bovine excrement.
It was lifted from Jonathan Marks' presentation to the American Anthropological Association in what would become his excellent book "What it means to be 98% Chimpanzee.
What It Really Means To Be 99% Chimpanzee
What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and their Genes: Jonathan Marks: 9780520240643: Amazon.com: Books

If evolution were true, especially if abiogenesis were true, we would have unrelated life forms that developed with a different blueprint.

Wow. Just wow. You really are in over your head aren't you, because just the opposite is the case. If life looks like what it did/does, and that result is due to evolution, all life would be expected to share DNA and at least a few genes here and there. In Douglas Theobald's seminal web essay 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, that's the first thing he discusses.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.​

NO! You would claim that they PROVE descent because those characteristics were carried over from earlier branches of descent.

I keep hearing this from Creationists, but they never actually give me an answer when I follow up with this question - How exactly, within evolutionary theory, would it do that for:
Birds with forelimbs and wings
Iguanas with mammary glands
Roses with melanocites
Shrimp with backbones.
(and keep in mind that the in 4 of 5 of these examples, the characteristics listed evolved after the beings in questions split from the beings in which those characteristics evolved)

{cont. -}

 

[USincognito]

Condescending tripe. I heard about mutations in kindergarten.

Mendacious prevarication. I don't know when you actually first heard of them, but I know the instruction wasn't very good or it didn't stick.

New information is information that doesn't exist.

For example, humans and frogs have different DNA.

Actually, all life has the same DNA (see above), just arranged in different patterns which then produces different characteristics. In the same way that carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in different combinations form different types of sugars or carbohydrates or even deoxyribose a biopolymer that forms... DNA.

However, for common deescent to be true, the genetic information for ALL living things must reside in ALL living things. For a fish to become an amphibian it must have the information to form lungs. For the amphibian to gro legs it must have that information. For it it sprout wings it must have that information.

Wow, this is the almost the same argument I use against "genetic frontloading" as posited by IDers. That if there was genetic frontloading, then we should find the genes for every allele for a characteristic in every being within a "kind", but turned off. We don't find that however, and the reason is that novel characteristics manifest due to mutations which allow for new expressions. That is, an arm can become a wing due to mutations. A nose can migrate to the top of the skull due to mutations. A quadripedal ape with a decent sized brain can evolve into a bipedal ape with large brain due to mutations.

Either that new gentic information has to magically develop; a process that does not exist in nature; or the fish must carry the genetic information to become either a butterfly or a buffalo.

Either new information has to form, or it all had to exist with the earliest abiogenesis created cell.

Continuing to insist something after one has been shown incorrect does not help one's case. There is a source for new alleles resulting in the expression of new characteristics. It's mutation.

 

[USincognito]

Or what you CLAIM are transitional fossils. I could look at a skeleton of a donkey, a mule and a horse and show transition.

Instead of bluffing and blustering, why don't you just do so? Tell us what multivariate analyses you performed, what the results where and how those measurements and characteristics "show transition".

Ironically, when Todd Wood tried to figure out baraminological classifications of horse tranistionals, he finally concluded that all of the horse series, from Hyracatherium to Equus was a single horse "kind".

 

[Person of]

This totally reminds me of that thread about reptilians, except it was 1 man against the whole forum, and when he proved all of them wrong they claimed they "felt it in their heart" and then kept repeating the same nonsense that he disproved.

Although, I'm not too sure that Crazy is actually as crazy as he's letting himself out to be. I think he's trolling, but who know?

 

[Loudmouth]

You and I will never reach consensus.

That is because I follow the evidence while you cling to religious dogma.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

That is because I follow the evidence while you cling to religious dogma.

I salute you for it.