Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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 replied

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

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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 replied

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

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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 replied

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

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 77 of 137 (601178)
01-19-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taq
01-18-2011 5:43 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves?
Just a different species of the same critter.
Taq writes:
Chimps are apes. Humans are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. It is just apes turning into apes. This is microevolution, right?
You may be an ape, I don't know but I have never met one that could type.
I am a modern human, descendant of mankind that was created in the image/likeness of God posessing a body, spirit and mind.
Taq writes:
330 different species = 330 different critters, does it not? If they were all the same critter then how could there be 330 different species?
All 330 different species is classified as the same critter, a foraminifera.
Taq writes:
A common ancestor between humans and chimps has been validated:
So says Taq.
The article you refferenced makes no such claim.
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 76 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 5:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by bluescat48, posted 01-19-2011 2:58 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 11:32 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 92 by DrJones*, posted 01-21-2011 1:20 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 80 of 137 (601248)
01-19-2011 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taq
01-19-2011 11:32 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
Based on what criteria?
They can produce offspring that can produce offspring.
Taq writes:
The paper goes on to show that humans and other apes do share the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes which validates shared ancestry.
Since chimps and gorillas share ERV'S that humans don't that invalidates a common ancestor. I think HERV-K serves that purpose.
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 79 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 11:32 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 1:20 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 87 of 137 (601529)
01-21-2011 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by arachnophilia
01-19-2011 10:40 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
you see the עשה don't you?
Sure I see make in verse 26 but I don't see a man or mankind existing.
I don't see mankind until they are ברא created male and female in verse 27. There is no specific number of mankind created, there could have been many.
arachnophilia writes:
sure! same as above.
I didn't know God needed a day of atonement.
arachnophilia writes:
and orlinsky. and rashi. and pretty much anyone that can read hebrew.
Others that disagree with you would include, Driver, Briggs, Brown, Dillman, Pusey, Delitzsch, Dillman, among others.
arachnophilia writes:
i prefer to understand what the text means rather than creating a jumble of words that amount to nonsense.
Then explain how the following is a mess.
בראשית רא אלהים ברא את השמים ואת האדץ
בראשית a femine noun which is the Hebrew word meaning first, beginning, best, chief, with the preposition ב meaning in, on, with, by and we can even add your at?
The proper translation of that word and the preposition would be, In beginning, At beginning, At first
ברא is a Qal perfect verb that is only used with God as the subject of the verb and means to create, shape, form?
Biblical Hebrew does not have past, present, or future tenses.
Biblical Hebrew verbs are either prefect which is completed action or imperfect which is incomplete action.
אלהיםmasculine noun plural, meaning God the subject of the verb ברא? Translated God
את particle, sign of the definite direct object not translated in English.
השמים masculine noun meaning Heaven sky, with the prefix ה the definite article thus translated the Heaven?
ואת particle, sign of the definite direct object not translated in English. With the prefix ו translated and.
האדץ femine noun meaning land, Earth with the prefix ה the definite article thus translated the Earth?
In the Beginning, at the beginning, or at first tells us when God did the forming, shaping or creating.
I know you want בראשית to be translated as when began God to create.
That is impossible as the verb ברא is Qal perfect telling us the action of God was completed. The Heaven and Earth existed.
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.
acrahnophilia writes:
again, you cannot render the grammar perfectly literally in english and retain meaning. "at first of created god" doesn't make much sense in english. yet, bareshit bara elohim makes perfect sense in hebrew.
And when bareshit bara elohim is translated properly it makes perfect sense.
In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.
At the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.
At first God created the Heaven and the Earth.
I have no problem understanding from any one of the three that in eternity past God created the Heaven and the Earth.
You and I just don't agree on when that was.
But then no one else agrees with me so what is one more.
arachnophilia writes:
that's a lot of waws. and this verse clearly includes both
You did mean verses didn't you as that is two verses.
arachnophilia writes:
i agree. however, not every time the word "day" is used do the authors mean a period of light. sometimes, they mean a period of dark as well. sometimes, they mean something quite different:
So you accept that God called the light יןם.
Do you disagree that God called the חשש night.
Do you disagree that God called the evening (end of a light period) and the morning (the end of a dark period) יןם.
Here is Genesis 1:5 to refresh your memory.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So God called a light period day.
God called a light period combined with a dark period day.
God did not call anything else day and that settles it as far as I am concerned.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : Insert code for Hebrew word in a quote

"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 85 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2011 10:40 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by arachnophilia, posted 01-24-2011 11:08 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 88 of 137 (601530)
01-21-2011 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
01-20-2011 10:31 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi RAZD,
Sorry the problems presist.
RAZD writes:
Speciation is the seed that allows a new tree to grow.
It is not a new tree if it comes from the seed of a tree.
RAZD writes:
It is looking at the forest rather than the tree. Each tree in the forest is a record of the evolution within the clade represented by the tree ...
Using trees in a forest is not a good example of what you are trying to explain to me.
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.
RAZD writes:
Not only are there 330 different critter species observed in the paper by Arnold and Parker, there are many more species within the order
There are probably millions of species of foraminifera that have lived in the past and that we have burned in our automobiles.
But if you got 330 different species of foraminifera you still only got one critter.
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.
RAZD writes:
that evolution has not produced a critter in the last 66 million years that was a totally different critter in the primate order ....
But modern humans have only existed for 6 to 10 thousand years.
RAZD writes:
Do you consider yourself a "totally different critter" from Pelycodus ralstoni? Why?
Yes I am a totally different critter as I am a descendant of modern humans that was created in the image/likeness of God.
I have faith that in the future the prediction of the Bible that I will stand before God and give an account of my life will be validated which will then validate all other beliefs I have held.
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.
God Bless, as I remember you always in my prayers.

"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 86 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2011 10:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 11:06 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 01-21-2011 1:04 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2011 6:07 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 93 of 137 (601566)
01-21-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Taq
01-21-2011 11:06 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
Which of the fossils in the post above are different critters from humans, and what criteria are you using?
Which one is less than 10,000 years old?
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 90 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 11:06 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2011 2:24 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 4:37 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 95 of 137 (601569)
01-21-2011 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by DrJones*
01-21-2011 1:20 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi Dr,
DrJones* writes:
Make up you mind ICant, earlier you said that the criteria that defines what a "critter" is:
Quit putting words in my mouth.
I said in answer to the following question from Taq.
Taq writes:
How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves?
Just a different species of the same critter.
It would be physically impossible for a chihuahau and a wolf to breed.
Just as it would be a physical impossibility for the stallion and mare in my avatar to breed.
Since I am told here that if they can't breed they are a different species I made the statement: "Just a different species of the same critter".
Would you classify the two horses in my avatar as different critters?
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 92 by DrJones*, posted 01-21-2011 1:20 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2011 2:48 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 4:40 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 96 of 137 (601571)
01-21-2011 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Blue Jay
01-21-2011 2:24 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
Circular argument: you believe that humans are less than 10,000 years old. In order to support this, you need something other than the age that comes to the same conclusion.
But I do have other information it is called "God's Word".
According to God's Word modern man can not be more than 10,000 years old.
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.
Bluejay writes:
The 1 species of hominid that is less than 10,000 years old is identical to some hominids that are more than 10,000 years old, so the age doesn't help you much anyway.
We have buried capsules with things from the present in case we cease to exist and another inhabit our land one day so they can find it and know about our civilization.
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?
If they were not capable of leaving that iformation then they are not the same as modern man, we have planted the information.
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 94 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2011 2:24 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dirk, posted 01-21-2011 3:48 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-21-2011 4:37 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 4:54 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 108 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2011 8:20 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 98 of 137 (601576)
01-21-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Blue Jay
01-21-2011 2:48 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
This actually makes a lot of sense, ICANT.
Still, I'm bit confused about where this leaves your argument in terms of "transmutation." Let me ask a few questions:
OK
Bluejay writes:
Do you accept that mutations accumulate steadily over time?
I don't know if they accumulate steadlly or sporadically over time. But mutations good and bad do happen.
Isn't cancer a mutation?
Isn't plaque a mutation?
In fact isn't all our physical problems caused by a mutation?
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.
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.
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.
The Bible does not give a complete picture only a snapshot of the beginning and then the condition of the earth in Genesis 1:2. Since God has been around for eternity past I can't imagine Him being idle all that time. God began his creation in the beginning with the Heaven and Earth. After that He created a lot of creatures on Earth. He did not cease creating until Genesis 2:3 which was 6 to 10 thousand years ago.
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.
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 97 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2011 2:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Coragyps, posted 01-21-2011 3:35 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 100 by DrJones*, posted 01-21-2011 3:40 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 4:50 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 109 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2011 8:44 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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 seen this message but not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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 replied

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

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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 replied

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

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 1:18 PM ICANT 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