|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: In an article titled The non-transitions in ”human evolution’-on evolutionists’ terms, creationist John Woodmorappe writes:
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You haven't actually addressed my post #33.
Are you suggesting apes descended (devolved) from humans? If so, beginning when?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: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:This does not make any sense. Explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:When I was studying evolution and related subjects in graduate school I never heard it put quite that way. And for good reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: 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:
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024