Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 1:16 AM
388 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Rrhain (4 members, 384 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,774 Year: 10,380/21,208 Month: 3,467/2,674 Week: 10/873 Day: 10/76 Hour: 1/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11251
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 61 of 137 (599885)
01-11-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Taq
01-11-2011 11:35 AM


Re: OJT
God's Boss

But who is the boss's boss!?

GB

George Bush... God's Boss... Coincidence? I don't think so.


But seriously,

The topic is the creationist explanation for a phenomemon.

It looks like ICANT's explanation is that these fossils are of humans that lived before The Flud.

amirite?

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 11:35 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 1:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 62 of 137 (599887)
01-11-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by arachnophilia
01-10-2011 5:06 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Hi arach,

arachnophilia writes:

nonsense. man was not made on day one.

If he evolved you are correct.

If he was created by God he was formed from the dust of the ground the same day (light period) that the Universe and Earth began to exist.

Now this light period could have covered billions or even trillions of years. So everything did not have to happen instantly, which agrees with science.

arachnophilia writes:

grammar is not a matter of belief.

Sure it is when you break so many rules to reach your prefered translation.

arachnophilia writes:

1-3: When God began to create.

I know that there are some of the recent translations that use this translation.

Jewish Publication Society (3rd ed.) When God began to create heaven and Earth"

JPS Tanakh Translates Genesis 1:1 as When God began to create heaven and earth.

The Living Bible: "When God began creating the heavens and the earth..."

J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed, are proponents of this translation.

It really does not matter that there are at least 4 reasons it will not work under Biblical Hebrew's rules of grammer.

1. It changes the state of the verb. bara' is Qal perfect 3rd masculine singular. The perfect state is always a finite verb. But your translation requires a Qal infinitive construct.

2. Turns a noun into a verb. Not only does your translation require confusing an infinitive construct and perfect but also requires confusing a noun and a verb. There are several Hebrew words translated "begin, began" but they cannot be confused with re'shith which is used 51 times in the OT. The most common word for began in Genesis is chalal. The Bible never uses a verb form for re'shith or its root re'sh.

3. Puts the prepositional phrase in the wrong place. Biblical Hebrew does not allow splitting an infinitive, and prepositional phrase. Hebrew prepositions are prefixed onto the noun they modify thus they are inseparable prepositions. The preposition is not used on God therefore God is not the object of the preposition and thus When God is not justified.

4. The new verse becomes a dependent clause. Hebrew grammar and syntax forbid a dependent clause from being joined to the independent clause by a waw conjunction. So it makes no difference which verse you want to tie it to verse 2 or 3 as they both start with a waw conjunction.

arachnophilia writes:

(b) When the story of creation is resumed later,

Resumes????

I thought you believed there was two stories in Genesis 1 and 2.

Regardless, it does not resume as Genesis 2:4 begins the history of what took place in the day God created the Heaven and the Earth unless there was an absence of anything at Genesis 1:2.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2011 5:06 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2011 6:59 PM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 63 of 137 (599889)
01-11-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taq
01-10-2011 3:55 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

Why do modern human features slowly emerge in hominid fossils over time?

Do you think all people look alike?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 01-10-2011 3:55 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2011 12:41 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 1:19 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 2:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 64 of 137 (599890)
01-11-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
01-11-2011 12:38 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Do you think all people look alike?

Have you ever looked at an assortment of human skeletons?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 12:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 65 of 137 (599894)
01-11-2011 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
01-11-2011 12:38 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Do you think all people look alike?

No living person looks like H. erectus. In H. erectus we see primitive ape features not seen in modern humans.

So once again, why do modern human features slowly emerge in hominid fossils over time?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 12:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 66 of 137 (599895)
01-11-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
01-11-2011 12:28 PM


Re: OJT
But who is the boss's boss!?

Chuck Norris, obviously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2011 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15800
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 67 of 137 (599905)
01-11-2011 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
01-11-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Genesis species
But he said they would be numerous in all stratas.

Strata. And they are. Look how many we have just for the ape-human transition. You know, the subject of this thread?

Then again I may just be being preposterous.

Yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 10:13 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15800
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 68 of 137 (599909)
01-11-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
01-11-2011 12:38 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Do you think all people look alike?

Do you think there are any people who look like this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 12:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 6:06 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 69 of 137 (599961)
01-11-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
01-11-2011 2:50 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Do you think there are any people who look like this?

Or this:

Or this:

One of the key differences between these two species (H. habilis and H. erectus respectively) and modern humans is the protruding jaw, large brow ridges, and sloping forehead. For H. habilis and H. erectus try and figure out how they could wear a baseball cap. They lack the forehead for it.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 2:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2011 6:52 PM Taq has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 70 of 137 (599968)
01-11-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
01-11-2011 6:06 PM


Wait for it!
I predict a stunningly ignorant and offensive response to be shortly presented by ICANT.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 6:06 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 118 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 71 of 137 (599972)
01-11-2011 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ICANT
01-11-2011 12:32 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
ICANTREADTHEBIBLE writes:

If he evolved you are correct.

no, according to the bible. man is made on day day 6. do i need to cite the verse?

Now this light period could have covered billions or even trillions of years. So everything did not have to happen instantly, which agrees with science.

nonsense. genesis 1 is the etiology of shabbat. the days are literal.

Sure it is when you break so many rules to reach your prefered translation.

again, you're reading it wrong. it does not say, בראשונה ברא אלהים it says בראשית ברא אלהים i know you can't understand the difference. perhaps you should go take another six years of biblical hebrew, as you obviously haven't understood literally the first word of it.

I know that there are some of the recent translations that use this translation.

Jewish Publication Society (3rd ed.) When God began to create heaven and Earth"

JPS Tanakh Translates Genesis 1:1 as When God began to create heaven and earth.

these two are the same, and the notes i gave you -- no, i didn't write that -- are the notes by the man responsible for that translation, harry orlinsky. the above lengthy quote is the reason why that translation renders that verse that way. note that it cites rashi. if you're going to appeal to authority because you suspect that professional translators know what they're doing, you don't really get much more authority in the jewish scriptures than rashi.

1. It changes the state of the verb. bara' is Qal perfect 3rd masculine singular. The perfect state is always a finite verb. But your translation requires a Qal infinitive construct.

yes. it's an idiomatic translation. i know you haven't come to realize this yet, but biblical hebrew is not english. it does not function the same way, or obey the same rules of grammar. sometimes, changes are necessary to maintain the idea present in the text.

in any case, this is the reason that when i have rendered the first verse myself, it goes, "when god began creating the heaven and the earth" because it then retains the grammar as literally present.

2. Turns a noun into a verb.

no, it doesn't. infinitive are not gerunds.

3. Puts the prepositional phrase in the wrong place. Biblical Hebrew does not allow splitting an infinitive, and prepositional phrase. Hebrew prepositions are prefixed onto the noun they modify thus they are inseparable prepositions. The preposition is not used on God therefore God is not the object of the preposition and thus When God is not justified.

blah blah blah. it switches the subject and the verb, too! oh noes. clearly only "at front created god" can be correct!

4. The new verse becomes a dependent clause.

err, no, the verse is a dependent clause.

Hebrew grammar and syntax forbid a dependent clause from being joined to the independent clause by a waw conjunction.

now that's just nonsense. you're making the mistake that every vav is a conjunction. i don't even have to flip very far ahead to find a counter-example. genesis 6 begins in precisely the same way:

quote:
וַיְהִי כִּי-הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ

note the "waw conjunction" between the dependent clause, "when man began to multiply..." and the independent clause "the sons of god saw..."

i'll let you look up on your own why the initial vav is often left untranslated.

Resumes????

I thought you believed there was two stories in Genesis 1 and 2.

i did not write this source. it's harry orlinsky. and, since you can't read, here's the rest:

quote:
When the story of creation is resumed later, in 2.4, it is, again, the temporal ("When") construction that is employed: "When the LORD God made earth and heaven" (beyom asoth HASHEM elokim eretz we-shamayim); and note how there also, as in 1.2, verses 5 and 6 constitute a circumstantial clause, with verse 7 being the fulfillment of verse 4 ("When the LORD God made heaven and earth ... the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth...").

it's rather clearly comparing the two stories. not denying that there are two.

Regardless, it does not resume as Genesis 2:4 begins the history of what took place in the day God created the Heaven and the Earth unless there was an absence of anything at Genesis 1:2.

*facepalm*

so, you think "in the day" is literal, but the evening and morning kind of "day" is metaphor? yeah, that's a good one. no, "in the day" is clearly a temporal construct -- not referring to a literal 24 hour period. i suggest you find some other verses yourself.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 12:32 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 2:28 PM arachnophilia has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 72 of 137 (599976)
01-11-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
01-11-2011 10:41 AM


Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi ICANT, hope you are well.

When I mention transmutation as the process of one creature becoming a totally different creature I am refered to the statement that was when man tried to turn lead into gold.

Can you point to any biology textbook or on-line biology source (such as Berkeley or U.Mich) that defines macroevolution this way?

If not then please once again read Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. about creationist misdefinitions:

quote:
The creationist misdefinitions of evolution cited above carry with them implications that are not shared by the actual definition, while omitting aspects that are crucial to a proper understanding of the science, and this is why they are so wrong, and why creationists continue to misunderstand evolution. In this thread I would like to discuss those implications in greater detail.

If you cannot find a single biologist that supports your definition of macroevolution then you are guilty of creationist misdefinition.

Also see Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.:

quote:
We'll call what S1WC presented a 'daffynition' - some statement that does not relate to the terms as used in the science (no matter which science) but some 'daffy' misrepresentation instead (it is also known as a logical fallacy -- the straw man argument).

If you are addressing the validity of a science then you use the terms as defined in the science.

If you don't use the terms as defined in the science then you are not addressing the science.


It's really simple - you need to use the proper language to understand and be understood.

Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunity.

At the micro scale this involves the changes between individuals within the breeding populations over time, up to the point where speciation occurs.

At the macro scale this involves the increasing divergence of daughter populations after speciation has occurred, increasing the diversity of life by the continued evolution within the separate branches.

Both occur through the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunity. No additional mechanism is needed to explain the evidence.

In the micro scale version we are looking at the changes within populations, while in the macro scale we are looking at how these changes within all the different populations results in greater diversity.

The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists--for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

quote:
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
One of the great scientists of his day, and one of the "founding fathers" of the modern American scientific tradition, Louis Agassiz remains something of a historical enigma. A great systematist and paleontologist, a renowned teacher and tireless promoter of science in America, he was also a lifelong opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet even his most critical attacks on evolution have provided evolutionary biologists with insights.

128 years dead ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...%C3%A7ois_Jules_Pictet_de_la_Rive

quote:
Franois Jules Pictet de la Rive (27 September 1809 - 15 March 1872)
... Feeling the want of a hand-book, he prepared his Trait lmentaire de palontologie (4 vols. 1844-1846). In the first edition Pictet, while adopting the hypothesis of successive creations of species, admitted that some may have originated through the modification of preexisting forms. In his second edition (1853-1857) he enters further into the probable transformation of some species, and discusses the independence of certain faunas, which did not appear to have originated from the types which locally preceded them.

139 years dead ... and his handbook was published before Origin of Species?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paleontology

quote:
The history of paleontology traces the history of the effort to understand the history of life on Earth by studying the fossil record left behind by living organisms. Since it is concerned with understanding living organisms of the past paleontology can be considered to be a field of biology, but its historical development has been closely tied to geology and the effort to understand the history of the Earth itself.
...
Geological time scale and the history of life

Geologists such as Adam Sedgwick, and Roderick Murchison continued, in the course of disputes such as The Great Devonian Controversy, to make advances in stratigraphy. They described new geological epochs such as the Cambrian, the Silurian, the Devonian, and the Permian. ...


... with the link to Sedgwick:

quote:
Adam Sedgwick (22 March 1785 27 January 1873) was one of the founders of modern geology. He proposed the Devonian period of the geological timescale. Later, he proposed the Cambrian period, based on work which he did on Welsh rock strata.

Though he had guided the young Charles Darwin in his early study of geology, Sedgwick was an outspoken opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection.


... 134 years dead

All of these "critics" are people alive while Darwin was alive ... when there was a lot of reluctance to accept the theory Darwin proposed ...

... and nothing has happened in the over 100 ensuing years in biology and paleontology that provides any additional information about whether these ancient opinions were right or wrong ...?

Sorry, ICANT, but your "support" comes from old opinions that have been invalidated.

Why do creationists need to dredge up such old material if their opinions were correct?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 10:41 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 5:21 PM RAZD has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 73 of 137 (601056)
01-18-2011 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by arachnophilia
01-11-2011 6:59 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Hi arach,

arachnophilia writes:

no, according to the bible. man is made on day day 6. do i need to cite the verse?

Yes, specifically the one that uses עשה with the beginning of man to exist.

arachnophilia writes:

nonsense. genesis 1 is the etiology of shabbat. the days are literal.

So Genesis is the origin of the Sabbath.

Could you please point out the verse that שבת appears in prior to Exodus 16:23 and forward, when the Sabbath was first instituted and observed.

acrahnophilia writes:

again, you're reading it wrong.

So asserts arachnophilia.

arachnophilia writes:

and the notes i gave you -- no, i didn't write that -- are the notes by the man responsible for that translation, harry orlinsky. the above lengthy quote is the reason why that translation renders that verse that way. note that it cites rashi. if you're going to appeal to authority because you suspect that professional translators know what they're doing, you don't really get much more authority in the jewish scriptures than rashi.

I can't help it if your sources ignore the rules concerning Biblical Hebrew to support their personal beliefs.

acrahnophilia writes:

yes. it's an idiomatic translation. i know you haven't come to realize this yet, but biblical hebrew is not english. it does not function the same way, or obey the same rules of grammar. sometimes, changes are necessary to maintain the idea present in the text.

Idiomatic translation=

An idiom is an expression which is unique to a language and cannot be understood simply from the meaning of its individual words. In other words, the actual meaning of an idiom is not the total of the meaning of its individual parts. An idiom is a figure of speech.
Source

So you prefer what some man says rather than what the text says.

I think I can tell the difference in Hebrew and English.

But you don't seem to be able to tell the difference in Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew.

Could you explain how the verb ברא which is the Qal perfect which is completed action can become imperfect which means continuing action.

Which is required for your following statement.

arachnophilia writes:

in any case, this is the reason that when i have rendered the first verse myself, it goes, "when god began creating the heaven and the earth" because it then retains the grammar as literally present.

arachnophilia writes:

no, it doesn't. infinitive are not gerunds.

What does infinitive and gerunds have to do with a preposition placed on a noun turning it into a verb in Biblical Hebrew?

arachnophilia writes:

blah blah blah. it switches the subject and the verb, too! oh noes. clearly only "at front created god" can be correct!

What does your statement have to do with what is stated in Genesis 1:1 concerning אלהים being the subject of ברא which is a Qal perfect verb that declares God completed the action of creating the Heaven and the Earth.

To get your interpertation of "when god began creating the heaven and the earth" you have to change the perfect verb into an imperfect verb.

How do you acomplish that feat?

arachnophilia writes:

err, no, the verse is a dependent clause.

Only if you can change the verb ברא from being Qal perfect to an imperfect state.

How do you do that?

arachnophilia writes:

note the "waw conjunction" between the dependent clause, "when man began to multiply..." and the independent clause "the sons of god saw..."

Trying to support one idiomatic translation with another idiomatic translation is not going to get you any points with me.

If I am going down the road with cruise control on and hit the brakes the cruise control releases and the vehicle begins to slow but when I hit the resume button the vehicle will resume the set speed.

quote:
When the story of creation is resumed later, in 2.4,

Definitely seems to me that the story in Genesis chapter one is being resumed later in Genesis 2:4. That may not be what was intended but it is what was stated.

arachnophilia writes:

so, you think "in the day" is literal, but the evening and morning kind of "day" is metaphor? yeah, that's a good one. no, "in the day" is clearly a temporal construct -- not referring to a literal 24 hour period. i suggest you find some other verses yourself.

Yes I know "in the day" is literal.

God gave the definition of day.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God called a light period Day.

God called a light period and a dark period Day.

God declared the light period that had ended in Genesis 1:2 and the following light period that ended that dark period as the first day.

So I will take God's definition of what Day is over anything you want to say or anyone else as He is responsible for Day existing.

So "in the day" is a literal light period during which God created Heaven and Earth, and the history of that light period is given in Genesis 2:4-4:24.

And yes that light period and the first dark period that ended was declared the first day by God, which makes it a literal day.

Each following light period followed by a dark period that ended with a new light period is a literal day.

Any light period from Genesis 1:1 until today is a literal day.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2011 6:59 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2011 10:40 PM ICANT has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 74 of 137 (601062)
01-18-2011 3:02 PM


I still have not seen any creationist explanation as to why we see the emergence of modern human features over time in the hominid fossil record. Anyone?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 75 of 137 (601093)
01-18-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
01-11-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi RAZD,

Doing well hope you are also doing well.

RAZD writes:

Can you point to any biology textbook or on-line biology source (such as Berkeley or U.Mich) that defines macroevolution this way?

I was responding to the site Abe presented to support his view.

ApostateAbe writes:

You can read all about it here.

There are very few places that mentions transmutation at all but the three gentlemen in his article did refer to transmutation which was the belief at that time is what was required to produce a different critter from an existing critter.

Since it was impossible for transmutation to occur it got cast into the waste basket, and was replaced by 'Macro-Evolution'.

Since 'Macro-Evolution' one critter becoming another critter has never happened you and others here have cast the term 'Macro-Evolution' in the trash can.

Now only microevolution remains, which has occured, and is occuring.

The problem is there is no direct visible evidence that one critter has become a different critter. One critter becoming another critter would be necessary for all life forms to begin to exist from one life form.

We have a 66 million year history of foraminifera presented by Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) in which there was 330 species of foraminifera began to exist.

The problem is they were just 330 different species of foraminifera. Not one critter that was a totally different critter produced in that 66 million year period.

On the other hand I am supposed to believe that in the last 3 or 4 million years apes, chimps, and humans have evolved from a single life form.

How is that supposed to happen, when foraminifera could not produce a different critter in 66 million years?

My definition of 'Macro-Evolution' = evolution above the level of species.

From Berkeley

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

Do you disagree with Berkeley?

Do you disagree with your own statement?

Which is found in In Message 167 you said to ABO:

RAZD writes:


When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date.

This statement says that all those little microevolution events reaching back to a common ancestor has not been validated or invalidated yet.

Are you now in a position to say that the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population has been validated?

If so then present the evidence.

RAZD writes:

Sorry, ICANT, but your "support" comes from old opinions that have been invalidated.

If invalidated why did you put this statement just above your assertion?

RAZD writes:

... and nothing has happened in the over 100 ensuing years in biology and paleontology that provides any additional information about whether these ancient opinions were right or wrong ...?

Which says nothing has proved them right or wrong in the last 100 years.

Some invalidation.

RAZD writes:

Why do creationists need to dredge up such old material if their opinions were correct?

What gives you the idea that ApostateAbe is a creationist? He is the one that did the dredging.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2011 7:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 5:43 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2011 10:31 PM ICANT has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017