-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Very Simple Question For Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Sometimes there are claims to have made some aspect of life in a laboratory by some tedious process which just shows given starting materials and an intelligent designer one might synthesis or breed some trait
But that leans toward creation with the designer
But that leans toward creation with the designer
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
regarding the 'scientific article'
"... initial evolution remains poorly understood. [true...how true...] Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly. [hmm anyone can speculate... ]..." sounds like a 'punctuated evolution' backhanded concession that tries to prove a scientific faith claim
"... initial evolution remains poorly understood. [true...how true...] Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly. [hmm anyone can speculate... ]..." sounds like a 'punctuated evolution' backhanded concession that tries to prove a scientific faith claim
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
A good examples of a bad examples of evolution claims is the hand waving of are
amphibian to reptile (different egg material)
reptile to bird ( bellows lung to a continuos flow, scales to feathers)
dog to porpoise or cow to whale... both preposterous speculation
and the sad thing is kids are taught these every day without a peep about the problems
and Lucy the fossil... that's an embarrassment many evolutionists have retreated on that one
but mistakes die slowly... like the fraudulent piltodown man which was a chimp skull with teeth stained and filed down to look old and under lock and key uncritically for many decades
It just doesn't do much for the critical thought process essential to real science
to gloss over these as is commonly done in school
amphibian to reptile (different egg material)
reptile to bird ( bellows lung to a continuos flow, scales to feathers)
dog to porpoise or cow to whale... both preposterous speculation
and the sad thing is kids are taught these every day without a peep about the problems
and Lucy the fossil... that's an embarrassment many evolutionists have retreated on that one
but mistakes die slowly... like the fraudulent piltodown man which was a chimp skull with teeth stained and filed down to look old and under lock and key uncritically for many decades
It just doesn't do much for the critical thought process essential to real science
to gloss over these as is commonly done in school
Correct. I do not say that. I am not @Deeje.
That is correct also.
I have done the math in my head. All the species could not possibly have evolved in the time allowed. It isn't real math. It is dream math. I can't prove it.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
This is probably a fruitless endeavor but lets try it anyway
They share a common ancestor who more closely resembled modern amphibians. One of the earliest of which were the temnospondyli. Temnospondyli - Wikipedia . The difference in egg material comes from the difference in where they lay the eggs. Eggs that are hatched underwater and eggs hatched on land require vastly different materials
Scales to feathers isn't a difficult leap. No more so than hair to the spikes of a hedgehog.
Neither dogs nor cows evolved into marine mammals. Whales, porpoise and manatees are are most commonly related to the Hippo who already shares a striking resemblance to many of the fully aquatic mammals.
Currently most schools skip over evolution in a week out of the year because they are either worried about offending the scientifically illeterate but religious parents or the school system (in many cases) is controled already by people who would rather not have it talked about at all. In depth study about evolutoin, including human evolution, would be a wonderful thing for our biology classes. What is taught often is just a tiny little snippit of what it actually is and it leaves most of our students fairly clueless about evolution. So while I disagree that teaching more would be detremental to the theory I agree we need to better educate our children.
Can you go on more to explain why lucy the fossil is an embarrassment? And which creationst found out about the piltodown man? Which verse of the bible did he use to discover it was a fake?
I agree. Not about the science but how it is taught in school. We need a vastly better education system.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
True, how true.... dream math can't be proved
Take a rock and add water, wave your hands and wait billions of years. Surely that is enough, so the dream math says... but maybe its like shooting arrows at the moon, shoot shoot shoot.... never hits...
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Sure lets just talk about Lucy ... well... hip is for tree balancing... hands curved as a creature dwelling in a tree would... legs angled in like a tightrope walker... spine enters the cranium more like a canine than where one would expect if it was upright... and most embarrassing the latest thinking is Lucy is a guy monkey
Sadly some of the speculation happened because of the Latoli footprints where a tall hominid and short walk about 70 feet step by step with the smaller matching foot for foot the larger in wet volcanic ash that will harden like cement ... no explanation given for the lockstep of two vastly different sized hominids side by side... the human bare feet were humans and a child mimicking her parents steps... they do that ya know... animals? they might step in each other's footprints but not side by side and the foot print of the laetoli nothing like the monkey like feet of Lucy
But the other arguments of one type of egg to the other is speculation without observation or mechanism, and I think you left off the theropods are lizard hipped not bird hipped yet claimed to be bird ancestors... clinging to dogmatics
see Medical Professor of the year, David Menton discussing Lucy
Scales to feathers is 'easy' ? how so?
and egg to live birth? easy?
sure... hand waving is easy but will it fly?
Last edited:
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
There was never a specified sex to Lucy. I know it was assumed because more fossils of this species has been found and the males tended to be larger than what lucy was. Though I haven't heart that the specimine may have been male. It was named because of the song playong on the radio prior to knowing if it was male or female. Habitual walker means that they spent some time walking and some time in the trees. The two big evidences for her was the knee joints and the canine teeth. The fact that it had more human like knees but retained more apelike features is imortant evidence.
Fossil evidence shows she would have had more human like feet than ape like feet. One of the major differencess is that there was a gap between the large toe and the rest of the foot. This is something we see in the footprints as well. The footprints may or may not have been child and adult. The adult seems to be taking significantly shorter strides in comparison to the smaller one.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Actually ... There were no feet with the original body.... this theory didn't had a leg to stand on one might say...
In fact I forgot to mention, Lucy was a knuckle walker... how did that end up as an upright walker... God only knows... Lordy Lordy
In fact I forgot to mention, Lucy was a knuckle walker... how did that end up as an upright walker... God only knows... Lordy Lordy
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
In the end claims Lucy walked build down to a type of circular reasoning. There were no feet found with the original lucy and australeopithicus feet had a toe sticking out perpendicular like a monkey not human.... but the kicker is anything found in the vicinity was considered australieopithicus not human and human bones and artifacts are just assumed deducteo vis a vis circular reasoning to be Lucial's relatives
ICR sees the claim that Lucial's foot was very human and raises a skeptical eye
quote
In an interview with CBC radio, lead author Carol Ward said, “Lucy’s foot would have been just like yours or mine.”3 But this blatantly ignores prior finds showing that Lucy’s foot was actually configured like a hand, with a thumb-like big toe projecting sideways. And what if the foot bone in question was actually from a human and not from an Australopith at all? Since it was not attached to any other bones, this possibility should have been weighed.
The study authors wrote, “We assign AL 333-160 [the bone’s designation] to A. afarensis, the only hominin species in an assemblage of [more than] 370 hominin specimens so far recovered from the Hadar Formation.”2 The evolutionary term “hominin” includes apes, humans, and imaginary human-like or “pre-human” apes.
But their reasoning is flawed. First, they asserted that no modern human bones have been found in this deposit. They evidently interpreted this to mean that no human bones could be there. Then they concluded that the human-looking bone belonged to an ape.
But asserting that no human bones have been found is entirely self-serving! What if they have been found but were misidentified, being unexpected? AL 333-160 could actually be just what it looks like—a human foot bone. If so, then it contradicts the very assertion on which their argument rests.
unquote
'Lucy's' New Foot Bone Is Actually Human | The Institute for Creation Research
ICR sees the claim that Lucial's foot was very human and raises a skeptical eye
quote
In an interview with CBC radio, lead author Carol Ward said, “Lucy’s foot would have been just like yours or mine.”3 But this blatantly ignores prior finds showing that Lucy’s foot was actually configured like a hand, with a thumb-like big toe projecting sideways. And what if the foot bone in question was actually from a human and not from an Australopith at all? Since it was not attached to any other bones, this possibility should have been weighed.
The study authors wrote, “We assign AL 333-160 [the bone’s designation] to A. afarensis, the only hominin species in an assemblage of [more than] 370 hominin specimens so far recovered from the Hadar Formation.”2 The evolutionary term “hominin” includes apes, humans, and imaginary human-like or “pre-human” apes.
But their reasoning is flawed. First, they asserted that no modern human bones have been found in this deposit. They evidently interpreted this to mean that no human bones could be there. Then they concluded that the human-looking bone belonged to an ape.
But asserting that no human bones have been found is entirely self-serving! What if they have been found but were misidentified, being unexpected? AL 333-160 could actually be just what it looks like—a human foot bone. If so, then it contradicts the very assertion on which their argument rests.
unquote
'Lucy's' New Foot Bone Is Actually Human | The Institute for Creation Research
Last edited:
Uh, no, not like that. That is not evidence for life forms transitioning to other life forms. Yeast is still yeast.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
kinda like peppered moths... you start with dark and light moths and you end with dark and light moths
the case is not made for evolution but... there you are
See, it walks !!! ... but where's the feet ... I guess you see your pre convictions? and that works for evolutionists who don't realize it when they 'walk by faith'
Attachments
I think the mounting panic comes in the form of antagonism against anyone daring to question the ToE, to mention just one thing. The mounting evidence comes from the continuing research that reveals the irreducible complexity of molecular machines in living cells, hitherto undreamed of by scientists. Add to this the information stored in DNA, the lack of fossil evidence for macro evolution, the mathematical impossibility of even the simplest protein arising by random mutations; and the list goes on. Books have been written with such evidence, for those interested.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
LOL There is no "mounting panic." That is pure creationist propaganda. And it's comical.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Questioning ToE is like questioning the Emperor's new clothes
so by the way... dinosaur tracks in the southwest support a flood
notice how when water is shallow your stand on your feet, then as the water rise you go tippy toe then if the waters get deeper you float
so remarkably dines follow the flatter but higher elevations You see lots of tracks but no bodies
then you see not tracks but toe scrapes (as if the waters rose for a while) then back to tracks... then eventually massive burials ... speaks of a rising flood and escaping dines .... smaller dines perishing first... larger dines but slower next... eventually bug burials grounds
Rising floods make sense for what we see
Similarly the petrified forests speak of a flood
big root balls as if trees uprooted and became standing floaters and replaced without roots
like what happened in Mount St Helens
and much more scientific than the dogmatic outdated claims about Lucy
so by the way... dinosaur tracks in the southwest support a flood
notice how when water is shallow your stand on your feet, then as the water rise you go tippy toe then if the waters get deeper you float
so remarkably dines follow the flatter but higher elevations You see lots of tracks but no bodies
then you see not tracks but toe scrapes (as if the waters rose for a while) then back to tracks... then eventually massive burials ... speaks of a rising flood and escaping dines .... smaller dines perishing first... larger dines but slower next... eventually bug burials grounds
Rising floods make sense for what we see
Similarly the petrified forests speak of a flood
big root balls as if trees uprooted and became standing floaters and replaced without roots
like what happened in Mount St Helens
and much more scientific than the dogmatic outdated claims about Lucy
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Thanks for being honest.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Too short a time.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You wanted evidence for macroevolution and you got it.
Since speciation can occur in "too short a time," as you put it, then you can't really argue that it can't happen on longer timescales. Nice attempt to move the goal posts though.
james bond
Well-Known Member
All of your examples are changes within a species and we can see it within our lifetimes.