Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 7 of 121 (451427)
01-27-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
01-27-2008 4:14 PM


Re: creolution?
quote:
Worse: the period of superevolution was only a couple hundred years after the big wash and rinse cycle.
In an article titled The non-transitions in ”human evolution’-on evolutionists’ terms, creationist John Woodmorappe writes:
quote:
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man-all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
What if this wonderful bit of creation “science” was actually correct? It would have the following implication (which runs contrary to what creationists generally claim):
It would mean that the change from modern man to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would thus require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only admitted that it does occur, but they see it occurring several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
Superevolution indeed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2008 4:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 01-27-2008 5:12 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2008 6:09 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 14 of 121 (453084)
02-01-2008 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Crooked to what standard
02-01-2008 11:18 AM


Your questions seem to all be straight from creationist talking points.
Try this website for concise answers to these, and many more, such questions:
Index to Creationist Claims

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 11:18 AM Crooked to what standard has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 121 (453154)
02-01-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
02-01-2008 2:03 PM


quote:
The Fundamentalists of AiG, who accept microevolution, are now obligated to show how the nature that we see today developed itself since the Flood in 3140 BC. The ridiculous rates of speciation that are postulated are false on their face. No evolution of any kind can operate that fast. This is why we Paleyan designists or neo-British natural theologians say that God controls nature hands-on - microevolution is false. Divine power has reproduced nature since the Flood.
We are comforted that Christian Fundamentalism & Atheist-evolutionism accept microevolution. Both extremes exemplify the utter falsity of microevolution and its impossibility.
That line of reasoning only holds true if there was a global flood about 4350 years ago (that is the most commonly accepted date that I can find).
Science has found no evidence to support the idea of a global flood at that or any other time.
It is you who is working from a false premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-01-2008 2:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 4:18 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 121 (453609)
02-03-2008 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by tesla
02-03-2008 12:20 PM


Devolution?
quote:
there are tons of different ideas, and huge arguments from creationists and evolutionists, and disagreement within both parties within themselves since no conclusion is yet available.
it would appear to me, that apes are more likely a devolution of man from this data.
A devolution beginning when?
If you argue that this happened after the fall, or after the flood, you are positing the exact same type of evolution that scientists propose and that creationist generally oppose, but you are positing it several hundred times faster and in reverse.
Is this what you really mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by tesla, posted 02-03-2008 12:20 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 02-03-2008 1:14 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 38 of 121 (453626)
02-03-2008 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by tesla
02-03-2008 1:17 PM


Devolution?
You haven't actually addressed my post #33.
Are you suggesting apes descended (devolved) from humans?
If so, beginning when?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by tesla, posted 02-03-2008 1:17 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by tesla, posted 02-03-2008 1:26 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 40 of 121 (453636)
02-03-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by tesla
02-03-2008 1:26 PM


Re: Devolution?
quote:
evidence does show less intelligent forms of modern man with "apparently" stone tools well before the "modern" ape.
Correct.
But there is no good evidence that the man-ape line converged anytime after the split was completed, probably some 5-6 million years ago.
Each side went its own way, the apes remaining in the forests and the line leading to us heading for the forest edges and grasslands.
I have seen no evidence that man devolved into apes. At least one creationist has posited that after the flood man split and early species of Homo resulted (evolution several hundred times faster than evolutionists posit, and in reverse) but the evidence suggests this is not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by tesla, posted 02-03-2008 1:26 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by tesla, posted 02-03-2008 1:52 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 69 of 121 (454182)
02-05-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by tesla
02-05-2008 5:10 PM


Re: Devolution?
quote:
IF both ape, and man, came from the same start, the start can be called man, or ape, depending on which tree you are following. i call the initial start, IF both are related, the start of man is man in an early form.
That might work if the amount of change from the starting point is the same in each branch. That clearly is not the case. The most recent common ancestor, while neither man nor ape, is closer to what we today would call an ape.
quote:
and apes are the offspring of ignorance.
This does not make any sense. Explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 5:10 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 8:22 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 72 of 121 (454191)
02-05-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by tesla
02-05-2008 8:22 PM


Re: Devolution?
quote:
without having a full specimen to talk to, we cannot know which end product the creature is closer to. we don't know its abilities to reason.
apes the offspring of ignorance:
stupid begets stupid.
if the habit of the mind was to do little but eat, sexual activity, tree hanging an clowning, over time , with like minded mateing, the habits would only be enforced.
if the habit of agriculture, and higher thought, hunting, and greater work, was to be exercised, and like minded individuals mate, the complexity would become more enforced.
stupid+stupid+time=stupider
smart and smart and time = smarter.
When I was studying evolution and related subjects in graduate school I never heard it put quite that way.
And for good reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by tesla, posted 02-05-2008 8:22 PM tesla has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 108 of 121 (455107)
02-10-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by tesla
02-10-2008 11:49 AM


quote:
for instance, on the molecular level, if the conditions were right, its possible in theory that radiation and other forces working with a specific DNA code could have activated a previously inactive part of the DNA code, and prompt coding. you could argue, the initial DNA would be the start, but since the product could be so drastically different from the activation, it could be a whole new species,with not much in common with the initial DNA, including the inability to reproduce with the previous DNA form.
there's a new theory.
That's not a theory, that's a guess.
"Theory" is well-defined in science, even if laymen are unaware of that definition.
Try these definitions as a good start:
    Source
    When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by tesla, posted 02-10-2008 11:49 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by tesla, posted 02-10-2008 1:14 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024