Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 11:29 AM
335 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,583 Year: 29,189/21,208 Month: 1,255/1,847 Week: 178/452 Day: 52/126 Hour: 7/18

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 106 of 137 (601587)
01-21-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
01-21-2011 2:47 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
But I do have other information it is called "God's Word".

How did you determine that this information is correct?

Does that mean they would be a lot different from their predecessors? Not necessarly because the designer would only make revisions and addtions to the original design to produce the modern man.

Why would the designer do this? Why not start from scratch? For an all powerful and all knowing deity it would be just as easy to start from scratch as it would to redesign an already existing species. Also, this doesn't explain the nested hierarchy. There is nothing stopping a redesign from incorporating designs from other lineages.

If they were not capable of leaving that iformation then they are not the same as modern man, we have planted the information.

There are tons of cave paintings that predate modern man.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:47 PM ICANT has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19329
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 107 of 137 (601590)
01-21-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
01-21-2011 6:32 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi ICANT

If you want to explain how all those little changes in a critter can produce a competely different critter you probably wasting your time as there is not enough variation in the critters we have to look at to convince me.

So you agree that all the evidence of diversity on earth and in the fossil and genetic record does not show you enough variation to qualify in your mind as a "completely different critter" - the question is whether this will cause you to reflect that maybe your concept of a "completely different critter" is what is in error.

But if you got 330 different species of foraminifera you still only got one critter.

According to you, not according to the evidence of evolutionary biology.

But modern humans have only existed for 6 to 10 thousand years.

According to you, not according to the evidence of evolutionary biology.

Yes I am a totally different critter as I am a descendant of modern humans ...

And yet the foraminifera genetically have similarly different critters ...

Just like you have faith that in the future there will be evidence that will validate the prediction of the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population.

Curiously, I have very little faith in ever seeing that validation.

Now when you back off and look at life and you see a foraminifera and a horse you got two different critters. And you are trying to convince me they decended from the same life form. I don't think so.

Interestingly, your opinion is not able to alter evidence, nor change reality to fit your world view biases.

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 88 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 6:32 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 1:31 PM RAZD has responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 108 of 137 (601596)
01-21-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
01-21-2011 2:47 PM


New subtitle but creationists are still wrong
According to God's Word modern man can not be more than 10,000 years old.

He's wrong.

If the inhabitants of the earth of 30,000 years ago were the same as modern man where is their information they left for us to find?

Archaeologists and paleontologists find that all the time.

Cave paintings are one example, while stone tools are another. We have stone tools going back beyond two million years, representing everything from modern humans to the Oldowan assemblages.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:47 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 109 of 137 (601599)
01-21-2011 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ICANT
01-21-2011 3:22 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi, ICANT.

You've always struck me as a decent and honest person.

But, these answers you gave me don't seem very honest. It seems like you know the conclusion that I want you to arrive at, and you're deliberately choosing the answers to the questions that will prevent you from arriving at that conclusion. Give it some honest consideration!

ICANT writes:

In fact isn't all our physical problems caused by a mutation?

We don't have to talk about beneficial and deleterious mutations right now: we only have to talk about whether or not the differences between those hominid skulls are consistent with mutations.

-----

ICANT writes:

Bluejay writes:

Do you accept that physical changes often accompany mutations?

I sure do. At one time I could bench press 400 lbs. Now I have a problem with a hundred lb sack of salt.

Okay, this is probably not a mutation.

-----

ICANT writes:

Bluejay writes:

Do you accept that reproductive isolation would allow different sets of mutations and accompanying physical changes to accumulate over time?

Sure it is possible. But if the DNA is the same to begin with they could end up with the same sets of mutations regardless of their location.

The possibility of this happening is so low that we might as well regard it as impossible.

-----

ICANT writes:

Bluejay writes:

Do you accept that the hominid skulls in that picture you've been talking about display physical changes that could be related to mutations?

Sure they could be related to mutations.

They could also be related to different beginnings of different creatures.

Sure, they could. But, given how broadly similar they are, and how well they seem to transition from one skull to the next, does it really seem reasonable to conclude that they are completely unrelated?

Also, none of them has a beginning that lines up with your timeline, so do you think it would help your argument much even if it were true?

-----

ICANT writes:

Bluejay writes:

Do you accept that this would be evolution?

I think I would call it the opposite of evolution as it seems that when enough time has passed everything becomes extinct. A fact that has accelerated since modern man appeared on Earth.

This is why I think your answers are dishonest. You didn't really answer the question: you just made a generic comment about your opinion about evolution, that includes some extraneous information that isn't really related to the topic.

Let me ask again: if the differences between the hominid skulls in that picture upthread can be traced to mutations, would you accept that these differences would represent evolution?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 3:22 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 12:56 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 110 of 137 (601633)
01-22-2011 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Blue Jay
01-21-2011 8:44 PM


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

Bluejay writes:

But, these answers you gave me don't seem very honest.

You ask me 5 questions and I gave you my answers.

You don't like my answers and accuse me of lying.

Why does my answer have to be the answer that you expected or wanted? I will tell you like I tell everyone I come into contact with in my pastoral duties. If you don't want my opinion don't ask the question.

I believe in creation by God.

I believe that changes take place in life and among things on earth.

The only common ancestor I believe we have is man and every living thing on earth was formed from the elements found in the earth.

I do not believe in evolution as taught at EvC.

Bluejay writes:

We don't have to talk about beneficial and deleterious mutations right now: we only have to talk about whether or not the differences between those hominid skulls are consistent with mutations.

The differences between those hominid skulls is controled by the information stored in the DNA of each individual hominid.

Bluejay writes:

The possibility of this happening is so low that we might as well regard it as impossible.

You mean you don't believe that the DNA controls what is produced.

Bluejay writes:

Sure, they could. But, given how broadly similar they are, and how well they seem to transition from one skull to the next, does it really seem reasonable to conclude that they are completely unrelated?

Do you mean like the transitions man has made in the automobile over the last 100 years by his designs?

Bluejay writes:

Also, none of them has a beginning that lines up with your timeline, so do you think it would help your argument much even if it were true?

What timeline?

If they have existed more that 10,000 years they were not created in the image/likeness of God. That is the only timeline I have. I don't care how far back in history you place any of the life forms.

Bluejay writes:

This is why I think your answers are dishonest. You didn't really answer the question: you just made a generic comment about your opinion about evolution, that includes some extraneous information that isn't really related to the topic.

If you didn't want my opinion, why did you ask the question?

Bluejay writes:

Let me ask again: if the differences between the hominid skulls in that picture upthread can be traced to mutations, would you accept that these differences would represent evolution?

The differences between the hominid skulls can be traced to the information in the DNA contained in each individual hominid.

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 109 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2011 8:44 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 111 of 137 (601634)
01-22-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
01-21-2011 6:07 PM


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

RAZD writes:

the question is whether this will cause you to reflect that maybe your concept of a "completely different critter" is what is in err.

I doubt it.

I know a horse and a cow are different critters.
I know a cow and a hog are different critters.
I know a bird and a fish are different critters.

I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters.

I know that there are not enough fossils to convince me that all of these different critters was produced by a single cell life form.

RAZD writes:

According to you, not according to the evidence of evolutionary biology

Which one of their 330 different species was not and is not classified as foraminifera?

RAZD writes:

According to you, not according to the evidence of evolutionary biology.

Our definition of modern mankind is probably different. When I talk of modern man I am refering to the one I believe was created in the image/likeness of God by God. You are refering to the one that you believe has evolved from the the first single cell life form on earth, that there is no origin for.

RAZD writes:

Curiously, I have very little faith in ever seeing that validation.

So why make the following statement?

RAZD writes:

Interestingly, your opinion is not able to alter evidence, nor change reality to fit your world view biases.

Why do my opinion have to invalidate evidence that has not been validated to date?

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 107 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2011 6:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Coragyps, posted 01-22-2011 4:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2011 5:53 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 112 of 137 (601637)
01-22-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Taq
01-21-2011 4:50 PM


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

Taq writes:

Seriously? Read up on the difference between somatic mutations and germ line mutations. Also read up on plaque (hint: microorganisms). Also, if someone breaks their leg in a car accident is that due to a mutation? You have heard of "wear and tear" have you not?

Are you saying, each cancer does not starts with changes in one cell or a small group of cells?

Are you saying, arterial plaque does not start with damage to the artery and the response of the cells multiplying?

I have a complete replacement knee and a partial replacement of the other knee. So I am familiar with wear and tear.

I am also familiar with external trauma.

Taq writes:

Obviously, not all lineages went extinct.

Not yet.

We have thousands of species going extinct each year.

How many replacements do we have coming on line?

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 105 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 4:50 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 1:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 113 of 137 (601640)
01-22-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Taq
01-21-2011 4:37 PM


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

Taq writes:

Since you don't accept radiometric dating you will have to tell me.

Can you produce any post in which I have ever expressed an opinion as to the whether I accept or reject radiometric dating methods?

I can't remember in over 3 years where I expressed that opinion.

I did make this statement in Message 285

Percy, now you really got me confused. You say yes the dating would still show it to be 13.7 billion years old but then you raise a question by saying the molten state tends to reset the radiometric clocks because of the mixing. If it reset the clock then it should only show to be 4.56 billion years old.

In Message 191

In answer to Chiroptera I made this statement:

Creationists try to argue about "changing rates of radioactive decay",

I am a creationist and that would be a stupid argument.

I haven't changed my mind.

According to a search of my posts that is the only two times the word radiometric or radioactive decay appears in any form.

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 102 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 4:37 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 1:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5299
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 114 of 137 (601649)
01-22-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICANT
01-22-2011 1:31 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
I know a horse and a cow are different critters.
I know a cow and a hog are different critters.
I know a bird and a fish are different critters.

Which one of their 330 different species was not and is not classified as foraminifera?

Which one of hog, cow, and horse are not classified as a mammal? Do they not all give milk? For that matter, which of them is not classified as an ungulate? Do they not all have hooves? What makes you think that forams are all closer cousins than ungulates are?

As you typically do, you are taking the kindergarten approach to biology: "if it swims, it's a fishie!" Never mind that whales are mammals and sharks are selachimorphs......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 1:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19329
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 115 of 137 (601654)
01-22-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICANT
01-22-2011 1:31 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi ICANT, once again ...

I know a horse and a cow are different critters.
I know a cow and a hog are different critters.
I know a bird and a fish are different critters.

How? What is your criteria?

I know a horse and a cow are different critters.

Here (again?) is the result of the criteria used in science to differentiate them:

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

quote:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Bovidae
Subfamily: Bovinae
Genus: Bos

There are various living and extinct cow species within the Bos genus.

The ORDER Artiodactyla includes all EVEN toed ungulates, including cows, but not horses.

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

quote:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Perissodactyla
Family: Equidae
Genus: Equus

There are various living and extinct horse species within the Equus genus, as well as zebras etc.

The ORDER Perissodactyla includes all ODD toed ungulates, including horses, but not cows.

I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters.

And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a cow will always be a cow, Bos, Bovinae, Bovidae, Artiodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a horse.

And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a horse will be a horse, Equus, Equidae, Perissodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a cow.

I know a cow and a hog are different critters.

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

quote:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Suidae
Subfamily: Suinae
Genus: Sus

There are various living and extinct pig species within the Sus genus.

The ORDER Artiodactyla includes all EVEN toed ungulates, including cows, but not horses. The FAMILY Suidae includes pigs, but not cows, and the FAMILY Bovidae includes cows, but not pigs.

I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters.

And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a cow will always be a cow, Bos, Bovinae, Bovidae, Artiodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a pig.

And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a pig will be a pig, Sus, Suidae, Suidae, Artiodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a cow. Nor will it be a horse or a fish or a bird.

In all three of these cases a member of the Eutherian Infraclass has not produced anything that is not a Eutherian. This is like you saying that a member of the PHYLUM Foraminifera has not produced anything that is not a foraminifera.

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

quote:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Rhizaria
Superphylum: Retaria
Phylum: Foraminifera

Even though the PHYLUM Foraminifera has produced the following ORDERS:

quote:
Allogromiida
Carterinida
Fusulinida- extinct
Globigerinida
Involutinida - extinct
Lagenida
Miliolida
Rotaliida
Silicoloculinida
Spirillinida
Textulariida
incertae sedis
Xenophyophorea
Reticulomyxa

With quite different characteristics and behaviors, each with different FAMILIES each with different GENERA and each with different SPECIES.

Just a sample of the differences in four of these ORDERS:

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

quote:
The Allogromiida are a group of monothalamous (single-chambered), mostly organic-walled foraminiferans, including some that produce agglutinated tests (Lagynacea).

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

quote:
The Globigerinida are a common group of foraminiferans that are found as marine plankton (other groups are primarily benthic). They produce hyaline calcareous tests, and are known as fossils from the Jurassic period onwards. The group has included more than 100 genera and over 400 species, of which about 30 species are extant. One of the most important genera is Globigerina; vast areas of the ocean floor are covered with Globigerina ooze[1] (named by Murray and Renard in 1873), dominated by the shells of planktonic forams.

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

quote:
Miliolida is an order of protists which comprise foraminifera with calcareous, porcelacous tests that are imperforate and commonly have a pseudochitinous lining. (Loeblick and Tappen, 1964). Tests are composed of randomly oriented calcite needles that have a high proportion of magnesium along with organic material. Tests lack pores and generally have multiple chambers.

Miliolids, which range from the Carboniferous to Recent, are benthic foraminifera abundant in shallow waters such as in estuaries and along coastlines, though they also include deep water oceanic forms.


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

quote:
The Rotaliida are a large and abundant group of foraminiferans. They are primarily oceanic benthos, although some are common in shallower waters such as estuaries. They also include many important fossils, such as nummulites. Rotaliids produce hyaline tests, in which the microscopic crystals may be oriented either radially (as in other forams) or obliquely.

Organic walled (ie soft) or aglutinated tests are entirely different from hyaline calcareous tests, and both are entirely different from calcareous, porcelacous tests, and all three are different from hyaline tests: these are indeed different critters as they wear different skins, different organizations and different behaviors.

Allogromiida and their subsequent families, genera and species, ARE "different critters" to Globigerinida and their subsequent families, genera and species, and both ARE "different critters" to Miliolida and their subsequent families, genera and species, and all three ARE "different critters" to Rotaliida and their subsequent families, genera and species.

Do you think their small size makes them the same critter?

I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters.

What you can't seem to fathom is that nowhere in the science of evolution does any theory say that any one "of those critters can produce one of the other critters" and that in fact if such a thing occurred that it would invalidate several theories in evolutionary biology.

What you can't seem to fathom is that nowhere in the evidence of evolution, from the world around us, through the paleontologic record and through the genetic record, is there a suggestion that such a cross-clade formation has occurred at any time in the past

RAZD writes:

Curiously, I have very little faith in ever seeing that validation.

So why make the following statement?

RAZD writes:

Interestingly, your opinion is not able to alter evidence, nor change reality to fit your world view biases.

Why do my opinion have to invalidate evidence that has not been validated to date?

You can't invalidate evidence, what you can invalidate is the theory that interprets the evidence to provide the best explanation known for all the evidence.

Because science works by developing theories from known evidence to provide the best explanation for the data, make predictions of what you will see (a) if the theory is true or (b) what you will see if the theory is false, and then testing it to see if it can be invalidate. Science works by invalidation, not by validation.

Why?

Because theory can never be proven 100% true, because it is necessarily a tentative conclusion from the known data to formulate the best explanation that fits all the known data, and new data always carries the possibility of invalidation.

At best a theory, especially one as tested as evolution, can be considered valid so far, if it has been extensively tested and is not invalidated by any results.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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 111 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 1:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 116 of 137 (601812)
01-24-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
01-22-2011 3:12 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Can you produce any post in which I have ever expressed an opinion as to the whether I accept or reject radiometric dating methods?

I can't remember in over 3 years where I expressed that opinion.

Then I apologize for confusing your claims with others.

With that said, is your sole criteria the age of the skull for determining whether or not the skulls are from modern humans? What methodologies do you approve of for determining the age of these skulls?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 3:12 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 117 of 137 (601813)
01-24-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
01-22-2011 2:40 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Are you saying, each cancer does not starts with changes in one cell or a small group of cells?

None of which are passed on to the next generation. Somatic mutations are not heritable.

Are you saying, arterial plaque does not start with damage to the artery and the response of the cells multiplying?

You began by talking about plaque which I assumed was oral plaque which is the result of bacterial growth, not mutations. Also, arterial plaques are not due to mutations.

Not yet.

We have thousands of species going extinct each year.

How many replacements do we have coming on line?

The number of living species has been highly variable through time. The Permian extinction even saw the disappearance of roughly 95% of species. The K/T extinction even 65 million years ago saw the same extinction rate for species larger than 30 kg or so. It took quite some time for species diversity to return after these major extinction events. Smaller extinction events have also occurred, such as the extinction of megafauna after the last ice age. And yet, every living species has an ancestor that made it through those extinction events. Species diversity is always in flux, and I would expect the future will be the same.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 2:40 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 6:25 PM Taq has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19329
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 118 of 137 (601858)
01-24-2011 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
01-24-2011 1:22 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
HiTaq,

The number of living species has been highly variable through time. The Permian extinction even saw the disappearance of roughly 95% of species. The K/T extinction even 65 million years ago saw the same extinction rate for species larger than 30 kg or so. It took quite some time for species diversity to return after these major extinction events. Smaller extinction events have also occurred, such as the extinction of megafauna after the last ice age.

And we can go further: if the current trend in ecological change continues, and massive extinction does occur as a result of (a) human activity PLUS (b) climate change to a warmer overall climate, that the ToE would predict an increase in diversity and speciation to follow. Who knows, we may get undeniable evidence of "macro" changes to convince all but the most devout deniers.

That would be fun to see.

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 117 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 1:22 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by bluescat48, posted 01-24-2011 11:03 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1807 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 119 of 137 (601906)
01-24-2011 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
01-24-2011 6:25 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
And we can go further: if the current trend in ecological change continues, and massive extinction does occur as a result of (a) human activity PLUS (b) climate change to a warmer overall climate, that the ToE would predict an increase in diversity and speciation to follow. Who knows, we may get undeniable evidence of "macro" changes to convince all but the most devout deniers

Unfortunately, humans may be part of the extinctions thus still unable to see the result.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 6:25 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 350 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 120 of 137 (601907)
01-24-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
01-21-2011 5:41 AM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
ICANTGETANYOFMYFACTSSTRAIGHT writes:

Sure I see make in verse 26 but I don't see a man or mankind existing.

this doesn't warrant a real response. you're just not reading it, and making up whatever you want to.

I didn't know God needed a day of atonement.

shabbat is every saturday. you're thinking of yom kippur. shabbat is a day of rest -- precisely as described in first verses of genesis 2.

In the Beginning, at the beginning, or at first tells us when God did the forming, shaping or creating.

no. it does not. please read my above posts again.

Now you can make your attacks and tell me I don't know what I am talking about that I can't read Hebrew and don't understand English. I would probably agree with you. But I do know the rules of Biblical Hebrew and I know that you can not make a Qal perfect verb an imperfect verb. Therefore I will conclude you are mistaken when you try to take modern English and modern Hebrew and apply their rules to Biblical Hebrew.

except that "began creating" is a perfect construct. and, while it's not exactly literal, it renders the idea perfectly fine even for a literal translation. it's not exact, as reshit is a noun and not a verb, but it's certainly close enough and it represents the dependent clause construct that reshit must begin -- according to the hebrew grammar.

the problem you're having is because you simply cannot directly translate a language into another language, word-for-word and have it obey the same grammatical rules. and, as i mentioned above, quoting rashi, if the text actually said what you wanted it to say, it would say בראשנה ברא אלהים and not בראשית ברא אלהים. one means "beginning" in an abstract sense, the other means "beginning of" something specific.

And when bareshit bara elohim is translated properly it makes perfect sense.

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

except that this is not the sense you get from reading the hebrew. it can easily be misconstrued that god did these actions at some definite "beginning" time, instead of the verse describing what god did at the beginning of creation. that difference may be subtle, but is very important.

I have no problem understanding from any one of the three that in eternity past God created the Heaven and the Earth.

and this is precisely the problem. that's not what the verse means.

You did mean verses didn't you as that is two verses.

splitting hairs, but yes.

So you accept that God called the light יןם.

and if we're going to split hairs, you might want to spell things correctly. vav and final nun are very different letters. what you wrote can't even be a word.

Do you disagree that God called the חשש night.

granted, i know, some people are afraid of the dark, but the word you're looking for is לילה

God did not call anything else day and that settles it as far as I am concerned.

how hopelessly simplistic.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 5:41 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 1:53 AM arachnophilia has responded

Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017