This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

[Earthling]

You do not see the immorality of the Adam and Eve myth if read literally? It is even denied in the New Testament where it is claimed that the son does not inherit the sins of the father. You end with a false dichotomy. Think about it, it is not a case of "either Adam sinned or there was no way for sin to enter". I can't help you though since you ended up by claiming that you can't be reasoned with.

Then you've already demonstrated your dishonesty, for agreeing that the subject could be taught without mentioning God, and you have aptly demonstrated the claim I made in previous thread that there was an atheist agenda. What you do is a disgrace to science and you should be ashamed of it, but you're not. You're proud of it.

Before I go on I would like to point out one thing. I would have mentioned it earlier but I and anyone paying attention to this thread knows what your response would have been.

25 years ago when I was an atheist I used the very scientific methodology of your chart to ask the question of whether or not God existed.

 

[InChrist]

Of course they are. There is no "Change in kind" in evolution. That is a creationist strawman. You share a common ancestor with other apes and you are still an ape.

You keep saying that and parroting the usual unsubstantiated evolutionists claims. Disputing change of kind is not a strawman, since evolutionists like yourself believe that one can extrapolate from variation within species to evolution between species. Despite of what might be claimed, natural selection has been observed to produce only variation within kinds, as the finches or blackcaps, salamanders or moths, simply shifts in their populations

EDIT: And the examples that I gave were all examples of macroevolution. Sadly most creationists do not understand that term either.

No, they weren't. They were examples of observed adaptations and changes within those birds and salamanders. This is microevolution. Macroevolution is the unobserved hypothetical process that is supposed to change a few simple forms into many complex and varied forms over millions of years of struggle and death producing a “tree of life” rooted in chance chemical combinations forming life and branching out to represent all the complex and varied species we have today, including man.

Macroevolution goes far beyond the scientific observations of natural selection into the realm of speculative extrapolation, which is outside the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you've already demonstrated your dishonesty, for agreeing that the subject could be taught without mentioning God, and you have aptly demonstrated the claim I made in previous thread that there was an atheist agenda. What you do is a disgrace to science and you should be ashamed of it, but you're not. You're proud of it.

Please, you are simply wrong again. I was trying to dismiss God from the topic and you could not honestly deal with that dismissal. If anyone is dishonest here it is you. Once again, if evolution is true it does not prove God. If evolution is false it does not prove God. You are the one that can't deal with this without bringing God into it. The theory of evolution only refutes the Adam and Eve myth, and of course the Noah's Ark myth as well. It does not refute the idea of a God or even a Christian God. Which you should be thankful for. No person with any compassion can worship the evil version of God in the first two books of the Bible.

Before I go on I would like to point out one thing. I would have mentioned it earlier but I and anyone paying attention to this thread knows what your response would have been.

25 years ago when I was an atheist I used the very scientific methodology of your chart to ask the question of whether or not God existed.

That is once again your fault. If you could honestly deal with the subject at hand you would learn how science works. The thread is aimed at enabling literalists to understand why they are wrong in their approach to the Bible. If you understood the sciences you would be able to understand how we know various tales of the Bible are wrong.

Once again, the fact that you are a product of evolution does not refute God, it only refutes flawed versions of God. Your version is critically flawed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep saying that and parroting the usual unsubstantiated evolutionists claims. Disputing change of kind is not a strawman, since evolutionists like yourself believe that one can extrapolate from variation within species to evolution between species. Despite of what might be claimed, natural selection has been observed to produce only variation within kinds, as the finches or blackcaps, salamanders or moths, simply shifts in their populations

Funny that you can't mention one "unsubstantiated claim" nor explain how they are not substantiated. And yes, you are using a strawman. Your side can't even come up with a working definition of "kind". You can take a shot. Tell me how would you tell if two different groups of animals were of the same "kind" or not? If you use nonsense undefined terms you concede defeat.

But let's work backwards. You share a common ancestor with other apes, they are still an ape you are still an ape, no "change in kind". If so where is it? Creationists can't find it. When given the fossils of our recent ancestors they do not tend to agree on where the line is between "ape and man". In fact some of them have argued both ways on one species as being "fully ape" and "fully man".

You share a common ancestor with other mammals. That common ancestor was a mammal, you are still a mammal. No change in kind, or are you going to try to deny that you are a mammal as well? Again, no change in kind.

You share a common ancestor with other tetrapods. That means that you have four limbs, that ancestor was a tetrapod. No change in kind.

You share a common ancestor with other vertebrates. That ancestor was a vertebrate. Or are you going to claim that you do not have a backbone? No change in kind.

You share a common ancestor with other chordates, that means they have a spinal chord. You have one too, no change in kind.

I could keep going.

No, they weren't. They were examples of observed adaptations and changes within those birds and salamanders. This is microevolution. Macroevolution is the unobserved hypothetical process that is supposed to change a few simple forms into many complex and varied forms over millions of years of struggle and death producing a “tree of life” rooted in chance chemical combinations forming life and branching out to represent all the complex and varied species we have today, including man.

Macroevolution goes far beyond the scientific observations of natural selection into the realm of speculative extrapolation, which is outside the scientific method.

You really need to learn what the words that you use mean. Macroevolutoin is evolution at the species level and above. Exactly what I showed you. That was the definition given to it by the person that invented the term.

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[2] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution


In other words macro and micro are both evolution.

EDIT: And your inability to understand observation does not mean that it does not happen. We can observe long term evolution. But you need to understand the scientific method to understand how.

Once again, you should never use the word "speculation". That word puts the burden of proof upon you and you cannot support any of your claims. That makes your use of the term a de facto breaking of the Ninth Commandment (or perhaps Eighth depending upon how you count them).

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps you may have inspired him. Let's hope for the best.

I very much doubt it, he's so used to untruth he'll spread it like honey no matter who he hurts

 

[The Anointed]

Funny that you can't mention one "unsubstantiated claim" nor explain how they are not substantiated. And yes, you are using a strawman. Your side can't even come up with a working definition of "kind". You can take a shot. Tell me how would you tell if two different groups of animals were of the same "kind" or not? If you use nonsense undefined terms you concede defeat.

But let's work backwards. You share a common ancestor with other apes, they are still an ape you are still an ape, no "change in kind". If so where is it? Creationists can't find it. When given the fossils of our recent ancestors they do not tend to agree on where the line is between "ape and man". In fact some of them have argued both ways on one species as being "fully ape" and "fully man".

You share a common ancestor with other mammals. That common ancestor was a mammal, you are still a mammal. No change in kind, or are you going to try to deny that you are a mammal as well? Again, no change in kind.

You share a common ancestor with other tetrapods. That means that you have four limbs, that ancestor was a tetrapod. No change in kind.

You share a common ancestor with other vertebrates. That ancestor was a vertebrate. Or are you going to claim that you do not have a backbone? No change in kind.

You share a common ancestor with other chordates, that means they have a spinal chord. You have one too, no change in kind.

I could keep going.



You really need to learn what the words that you use mean. Macroevolutoin is evolution at the species level and above. Exactly what I showed you. That was the definition given to it by the person that invented the term.

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[2] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution


In other words macro and micro are both evolution.

EDIT: And your inability to understand observation does not mean that it does not happen. We can observe long term evolution. But you need to understand the scientific method to understand how.

Once again, you should never use the word "speculation". That word puts the burden of proof upon you and you cannot support any of your claims. That makes your use of the term a de facto breaking of the Ninth Commandment (or perhaps Eighth depending upon how you count them).

You seem to accept that Mankind developed within the bodies of our animal ancestors. Do you believe that mankind closes the book of evolution, or do you believe that THE SON of MAN, according to our concept of one directional linear time, is currently developing within the body of mankind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to accept that Mankind developed within the bodies of our animal ancestors. Do you believe that mankind closes the book of evolution, or do you believe that THE SON of MAN, according to our concept of one directional linear time, is currently developing within the body of mankind?

What you wrote is pretty much nonsense. Yes, we are the product of evolution. And no, evolution has not stopped.

 

[The Anointed]

What you wrote is pretty much nonsense. Yes, we are the product of evolution. And no, evolution has not stopped.

Good! Then you must accept that Just as man evolved from our animal ancestors, and the process of evolution has not stopped, a new life form can evolve from mankind, and if this is the case, then that new life form can be already developing within the body of mankind. Am I correct, or do you deny this possibility?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good! Then you must accept that Just as man evolved from our animal ancestors, and the process of evolution has not stopped, a new life form can evolve from mankind, and if this is the case, then that new life form can be already developing within the body of mankind. Am I correct, or do you deny this possibility?

Yes, it is a poor understanding of evolution. Yes life is still evolving. But just as you and I are both still apes any offspring that we have will be humans, even if they can fly some day. The idea of a "new life form" is not correct.

A "change of kinds" is a creationist strawman. This article may help you to understand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

 

[SkepticThinker]

I acknowledge animals think and communicate in their own way, but not at all as humans do with the ability for conceptual ideas and communication through words, nor do animals express spirituality.

Animals may not communicate between themselves with words (though I have no idea why we should expect that they would), they communicate using their own languages, body language, etc. Why should it have to be exactly like ours? Did god not also create animals?

What is "spirituality" and why must one possess such a thing to be considered so special? I mean, as far as I know, I don't have any spirituality. Does that make me no better than the rest of the animals you look down on?

"Being made in the image of God gives man the ability to form conceptual ideas and express them in words. This places man on the other side of a chasm that separates him from animals—a chasm that no evolutionary process (even if there were such) could ever cross. This impassable barrier was referred to by Mortimer J. Adler in his 1967 still-in-print book, The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes. At that time, Adler, a University of Chicago philosophy professor, co-founder of the Great Books of the Western World, and an editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica, was an agnostic. He later became a professing Christian. Such reasoning in the search for truth is only possible because man was made in the image of God, who says, “Come now and let us reason together” (Is 1:18)."
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/march-2005-q-and-a-3

These are just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. And it seems a tad arrogant, to boot. Where can I find this God that is claimed to have created us "in his image?" Does he look like a human being then? When is someone actually going to demonstrate this, instead of just asserting it based on some weird sense of superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom?

How can any of these assertions be demonstrated using the scientific method? How does one demonstrate spirituality, for example?

 

[The Anointed]

Yes, it is a poor understanding of evolution. Yes life is still evolving. But just as you and I are both still apes any offspring that we have will be humans, even if they can fly some day. The idea of a "new life form" is not correct.

A "change of kinds" is a creationist strawman. This article may help you to understand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

And this article may help you to understand.

https://www.collective-evolution.co...cs-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/

What would it take for energized light beings to evolve from mankind?

From the book of Enoch the prophet 108: 11; “And now I will summon the spirits of the good who belong to the generation of the light, and I will transform those who were born in darkness, who, in the flesh were not recompensed with such honour as their faithfulness deserved. And I will bring forth in shining light those who have loved MY Holy name, and I will seat each one on the throne of his honour, and they shall be resplendent for times without number.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

And this article may help you to understand.

https://www.collective-evolution.co...cs-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/

What would it take for energized light beings to evolve from mankind?

From the book of Enoch the prophet 108: 11; “And now I will summon the spirits of the good who belong to the generation of the light, and I will transform those who were born in darkness, who, in the flesh were not recompensed with such honour as their faithfulness deserved. And I will bring forth in shining light those who have loved MY Holy name, and I will seat each one on the throne of his honour, and they shall be resplendent for times without number.”

Sorry, but a woo site that does not understand quantum mechanics is worthless. When a person does not understand what science is or how it is done they can be and frequently are fooled by such sites.

 

[The Anointed]

Sorry, but a woo site that does not understand quantum mechanics is worthless. When a person does not understand what science is or how it is done they can be and frequently are fooled by such sites.

Talking about yourself; are we?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Talking about yourself; are we?

Nope, you were fooled by a woo site. It seems to think that it matters whether a person observes something or not in QM, but it does not matter if it is a person, an ET a dog or even a non-living device. It is the act of observation that causes wave forms to collapse. No consciousness needed as they implied.

Rather than detouring lets go over the basics of science that you clearly do not understand. Have you looked at the very simplistic flow chart for the scientific method? I can post it again for you.

 

[InChrist]

Science and the scientific method is fallible and changeable because it is subject to human limitations and error. On the other hand, God as the One who created all that human scientists study is all-knowing and never in error...

For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true, but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.” Romans 3:3-4

"Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.

One of the constants of science is that science is constantly revising as it is challenged by new data, new theories, and new ways of observing and measuring data, not to mention the changes in scientific ideology molded by larger worldview shifts. Thomas Kuhn's landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions provides a compelling argument for how scientific paradigms evolve, shift, and even jump to completely different tracks. However, within the many disciplines of science, evolution and evolutionists have remained dogmatic about the necessity of remaining committed to certain a priori assumptions. Well, as it turns out, some of evolution's most revered a priori assumptions are now crumbling in the face of new research.

A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could."
https://pjmedia.com/faith/evolutionists-oops-we-may-have-been-wrong-all-along/


"It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.
The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html#jCp

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science and the scientific method is fallible and changeable because it is subject to human limitations and error. On the other hand, God as the One who created all that human scientists study is all-knowing and never in error...

For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true, but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.” Romans 3:3-4

"Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.

One of the constants of science is that science is constantly revising as it is challenged by new data, new theories, and new ways of observing and measuring data, not to mention the changes in scientific ideology molded by larger worldview shifts. Thomas Kuhn's landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions provides a compelling argument for how scientific paradigms evolve, shift, and even jump to completely different tracks. However, within the many disciplines of science, evolution and evolutionists have remained dogmatic about the necessity of remaining committed to certain a priori assumptions. Well, as it turns out, some of evolution's most revered a priori assumptions are now crumbling in the face of new research.

A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could."
https://pjmedia.com/faith/evolutionists-oops-we-may-have-been-wrong-all-along/


"It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.
The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html#jCp

The problem is that your understanding of God is clearly flawed. And reliance on articles that refute your false beliefs is highly ironic.


Tell me, can your version of God lie?

 

[Astrophile]

The paragraph you refer to is not copied. I do not claim to have detailed knowledge of the anatomy of hominins. I research and read information from a variety of sources and write my thoughts using my own words, unless I include a quote, in which case I provide the link to the article or website.

But even on the part of Darwinian evolutiontists there's been plenty of controversy concerning Lucy with the anatomical findings subject to a number of interpretations. What is called “australopithecine bipedalism” is not the same bipedalism associated with humans. The reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis demands the gluteal muscles be arranged like an ape’s. While this arrangement enables an australopithecine to move its legs in unique ways is there actually no proof that it would be stable enough for truly bipedal locomotion. Some evolutionists believed that Lucy’s pelvis was well-adapted for arboreal (tree-dwelling) life and that the orientation of the iliac blade on the pelvic bone matched that of chimpanzees, not humans.
So really, the bipedal question, is not whether proposed hominid ancestors were able to walk upright since any chimp today can do that to a certain degree and for short periods, but whether bipedal locomotion was the normal and efficient way of getting around. From the evolutionary point of view, evolving hominids needed to free their hands for other uses. A hominid that spent a good deal of time knuckle-walking would therefore fail as a convincing candidate for human ancestor. Yet, some of the most convincing evidence against Lucy’s proposed bipedalism comes not from her lower extremities but from her wrists. Evolutionists Brian Richmond and David Strait compared the skeletal morphology of living knuckle-walking primates to the bones of Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis. The bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking as seen in modern knuckle-walkers.

If the paragraphs reproduced above were not copied, why are they so similar to the passage quoted below from A Look at Lucy’s Legacy ?

What Berge calls “australopithecine bipedalism” is not at all the bipedalism associated with humans. Her reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis demands the gluteal muscles be arranged like an ape’s. This arrangement, while enabling an australopithecine to move its legs in unique ways, would still be too unstable for truly bipedal locomotion. Furthermore, Berge maintains the pelvic anatomy was still adapted for arboreal life. Berge believes evolving australopithecines retained ape-like anatomy while acquiring bipedality. Does this support the evolutionists’ original contention? Did a series of missing links make gradually more upright alterations in their gait until they were able to free their hands to use tools and concentrate on evolving bigger brains?

The bipedal question, of course, is not whether proposed hominid ancestors were able to walk upright—any chimp today can do that after a fashion for brief periods—but whether bipedal locomotion was the normal and efficient way of getting around. From the evolutionary point of view, evolving hominids needed to free their hands for other uses. A hominid that spent a good deal of time knuckle-walking would therefore fail as a convincing candidate for human ancestor. Oddly enough, though, some of the most convincing evidence against Lucy's proposed bipedalism comes not from her lower extremities but from her wrists. Evolutionists Brian Richmond and David Strait compared the skeletal morphology of living knuckle-walking primates to the bones of Australopithecus afarensis. Lucy's bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking seen in modern knuckle-walkers.

 

[InChrist]

If the paragraphs reproduced above were not copied, why are they so similar to the passage quoted below from A Look at Lucy’s Legacy ?

I did read that article as well as others and included a lot of the same information in writing those paragraphs, that is why it's similar. If I had copied it word for word or pasted the exact quote I would have included a link.

 

[ecco]

I did read that article as well as others and included a lot of the same information in writing those paragraphs, that is why it's similar. If I had copied it word for word or pasted the exact quote I would have included a link.

Changing a few words here and there doesn't alter the fact that it is obviously plagiarized.