Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

You're joking, right?

Why would I be kidding about something like this?

 

[james bond]

Last comment on the Lucy exhibit from a recent science friend, "We didn’t read any stories about museums losing money when they paid Egypt a pharaoh’s ransom to show King Tut’s artifacts. Lots of people (including me) went to the Pacific Science Center to see the Titanic artifacts. Attendance figures (and the resulting income) represent reality. How people spend their money is a better indication of what people believe than mere words. People aren’t fascinated by the evolution myth any more. That’s why they didn’t go."

Amen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why would I be kidding about something like this?

I can't see how you can be serious.

 

[metis]

Some archaeologist and teacher. Your last post deserves my Joker laugh.

Bye.

The above is simply an ad hominem attack, and all you have done with the above is to demean yourself. Is the above characteristic of your religious faith? Do you honestly think Jesus would approve what you've done, namely making fun of someone simply because you disagree with him/her?

 

[james bond]

Anyway, I think I made my case is showing Lucy was a chimpanzee. Not only that the Creation Museum is successful. It treats Lucy in the proper context.

The other evidence for

The above is simply an ad hominem attack, and all you have done with the above is to demean yourself. Is the above characteristic of your religious faith? Do you honestly think Jesus would approve what you've done, namely making fun of someone simply because you disagree with him/her?

Hell to the F-yeah! You are one lost former chimpanzee-like ape.

 

[metis]

Hell to the F-yeah! You are one lost former chimpanzee-like ape.

Wow, your church must certainly has some "interesting" teachings on how to treat people, or did you decide on this "theology" on your own? .

 

[james bond]

I think I provided more than enough evidence to show Lucy was a chimpanzee-like ape. Ardi, too. That was wrapped up in 2009 I believe. The kicker is not many people would put out their hard-earned money to go see her bones. The museums gave up that idea and now her remains will stay in Ethiopia probably forever. I paid to see King Tut and would pay to see the Titanic museum exhibits (not to mention the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter family theme-park destinations).

What's next, Tiktaalik? I understand its remains are next to Archaeopteryx.

Still no evidence of abiogenesis, protein being created outside the cell, nor aliens. BTW the Creation Museum is playing an aliens feature if you're in the area ha ha.

Where's Parsimony? What do you want me to answer?

 

[McBell]

I think I provided more than enough evidence to show Lucy was a chimpanzee-like ape.

Yes, your ratification skills are indeed most impressive.
Not the least bit convincing outside the choir, but impressive none the less.

 

[McBell]

Still no evidence of abiogenesis, protein being created outside the cell, nor aliens.

I cannot help but wonder if you realize that with the above statement you have revealed your hypocrisy?

 

[james bond]

Wow, your church must certainly has some "interesting" teachings on how to treat people, or did you decide on this "theology" on your own? .

I'm not interested in your petty squabbles, but let's discuss uniformitarianism vs catastrophism if you're up to it. We can start with James Hutton. Have you heard of him? Had these Theories of the Earth and I think he was an atheist.

 

[james bond]

I cannot help but wonder if you realize that with the above statement you have revealed your hypocrisy?

More complaints from the resident "complainer." Keep 'em coming, Mestie.

 

[McBell]

More complaints from the resident "complainer." Keep 'em coming, Mestie.

I understand.
You avoid the truth with your wit.
Problem is your wit is severely lacking.

You have shown just how impervious to truth and facts you truly are.
And I must say, I am impressed.

 

[Parsimony]

Fair enough. No reason for me to talk about Ardi. It was another chimpanzee-like ape. What is a chimp-like ape anyway? It's a chimp.

Next, you forget that Lucy came 100 million years later. That we agreed upon. How do you explain that? In general, how do you explain apes living with humans in the "distant" past and today?

I'll ask you, too. In what order were Lucy's fossils found? How far apart were they found?

I've been out of town.

I'll answer your questions when you finally address my two posts that I keep having to reminding you of. When I say "address my posts", I specifically mean go back, quote my posts and then formulate a response to each point. You know, like we were doing before?

 

[james bond]

So, it appears that the evolutionists here have been FOOLED by the optical illusion of evolution. They believe in a science (theories) based on political motivations. Both Charles Lyell and James Hutton were atheists. Here's a good example of what I mean.

The colors of the squares A and B are both the same color despite the "illusion."

 

[McBell]

So, it appears that the evolutionists here have been FOOLED by the optical illusion of evolution. They believe in a science (theories) based on political motivations. Both Charles Lyell and James Hutton were atheists. Here's a good example of what I mean.

The colors of the squares A and B are both the same color despite the "illusion."

ouch.
What does that say about your dogmatic clinging to your favourite dogma?
Especially when your willful ignorance is taken into consideration?
Not to mention your misplaced arrogance??

I understand you meant the above quote as an attack on others, but the truth is it reveals so much more about you than it does those it was supposed to attack.

 

[james bond]

So then you realize that there is no quote mining by evolutionists here?

Stop saying “atheist scientists”. You are on the borderline of strawmanning evolution as being atheistic once again.

I think it's appropriate since this is a "religious" forum. Will you buy evo scientists?

The original hip fossil was crushed and thus was not an accurate representation of its original shape. The reshaping was not done to the fossil but rather a copy made of it in an attempt to understand its real shape. There are only so many ways that bone fragments could be put back together. But what’s more compelling is that we have multiple fossils of Australopithecus. Lucy is not the only one with a hip joint present. See these fossils of Australopithecus sediba:

In the bottom-most picture, the center fossil is Lucy and the other two are A. sediba. The brown pieces represent the actual fossil remains. As you can see, the right hip joint and upper right femur are preserved in one specimen, and are definitely more similar to that of humans (which are broad and short) than to chimps (which are elongated). Below is a fossil of the pelvis of A. africanus

With all of these hips and knees there is plenty of evidence supporting the idea of Australopithecines walking upright at least part of the time. The location of the foramen magnum in the Taung child suggested bipedal location as well. A metatarsal revealed arched feet, another feature found in humans that is an adaptation for bipedal walking.

The majority of the left femur and the upper part of the right tibia of Lucy’s skeleton were found. These taken together make it easy to know what Lucy’s knee joint looked like. This would have allowed direct comparison with the 1973 knee, allowing scientists to know that it also belonged to an Australopithecus. It’s also interesting to note that a knee joint is present in one of the A. sediba fossils that I posted above. So we are hardly ignorant about the knees of the Australopithecines.

I think I covered Australopithecus and Australopithecines. Lovejoy covered Australopithecus in 1997 and updated in 2009. The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone. Australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs. They also have curved fingers and long curved toes. Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time tree-dwelling life. The article of Mark Collard and Leislie Aiello in Nature Magazine reports "good evidence from Lucy's hand-bones that her species "knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas still do today. It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees. However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other.

You are correct. So far as I can tell, Neanderthals were once thought to be much more primitive than we now know them to be. Today we know that they were very similar to other ancient humans.

I want to add that the Neanderthals were post-Flood not pre-Flood humans.

It most certainly is a mutation. I’ve found the scientific paper describing it. Here is a link if you want to see it for yourself. The mutation is a single nucleotide replacement; a guanine to thymine change. This results in an amino acid change from glycine to valine in the produced LRP5 protein. The total number of nucleotides is not changed nor is the total number of amino acids, so the total information content of the genome is the same.

This is, again, unevidenced. Please demonstrate that human bones were once unbreakable.

I know that our bones were more dense in the past, but they weren’t unbreakable. There’s an important difference there. This mutation doesn’t make bones unbreakable either, just very hard.

I think you're nit-picking on the word. Your atheist scientists use it, so why can't I? If you don't like it, take it up with them and their bone density mutation theories.

It already is mutated. That’s why the bone density became higher to begin with.

Provide evidence that this mutation caused genetic information to be lost, preferably from some paper describing the mutation itself.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa013444

These people have a genetic disease that causes deformities in the mouth, which probably make eating difficult. While one effect is increased bone density, the fact that the mutation also causes deformities in the mandible (lower jaw) makes it likely that the higher bone density is at least partly responsible for the deformities. To call this a beneficial mutation, without saying anything about the deformities, is at best poor scholarship and at worst deliberate fraud. Will you go for this mutation knowing all this?

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Incorrect. Pseudomonas and E.coli have both gain new metabolic functions in the lab from mutations (nylon degradation and aerobic citrate respiration).

Again, you're ignoring the negative effects. No one is going to infect themselves with either.

Every life form is a “new” life form, so I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

I’m not sure where you got that idea. God is a spirit.

I don’t know what the relevance of this is. God has struck people dead in an instant before. Remember Ananias and Sapphira? King Herod? The man who touched the Ark of the Covenant? If He could strike them dead in an instant, then He could have done the same to all the sinners of Noah’s day and thus saved a lot of time, effort and suffering with that great flood.

What makes you say that? Because I don’t believe the six days mentioned in Genesis were literal days? You’ll find that many Christians don’t think of it as literal. My belief or non-belief is also irrelevant to your ability to answer my questions or refute my claims.

No they don’t. If they did, then they wouldn’t be atheists. They don’t believe there is a God to cause pain and suffering. Usually, atheists who say that are trying to argue that, if the God of the Bible did exist, He is not good. That’s a different argument.

I do read the Bible regularly. I’m in the process of reading it the whole way through (I’m currently in 2 Kings). I’m well aware of the creationist side of things because I was a young Earth creationist for the majority of my life (over 2 decades). I’ve only been an evolutionist for about 3 years.

It's interesting that you mention that website, as that very same website defines evolution here. The definition given is strictly biological, with no reference to the Big Bang, stellar evolution or abiogenesis.

My answers are inside the quotes. How does one get them to appear outside?

 

[james bond]

ouch.
What does that say about your dogmatic clinging to your favourite dogma?
Especially when your willful ignorance is taken into consideration?
Not to mention your misplaced arrogance??

I understand you meant the above quote as an attack on others, but the truth is it reveals so much more about you than it does those it was supposed to attack.

You should ask yourself the same questions ha ha.

I tried to discuss Tiktaalik with you, but you keep running away. It's the fish to man theory.

 

[McBell]

You should ask yourself the same questions ha ha.

i understand your ego is to great for you to honestly look at yourself with the same scrutiny you look at those who do not agree with you.

I tried to discuss Tiktaalik with you, but you keep running away. It's the fish to man theory.

really?
When did you attempt to have alleged discussion?

 

[james bond]

i understand your ego is to great for you to honestly look at yourself with the same scrutiny you look at those who do not agree with you.


really?
When did you attempt to have alleged discussion?

A while back. You must've missed it. It's why I think you do not discuss anything worthwhile. Why not start now?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04

We got ray-finned fishes, the coelacanth and lungfish that are the fish we have today. So the evo website has not been updated and was wrong. I think the others are supposed to be extinct. The evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods. Based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, evos are claiming it became human. This is sketchy.

 

[james bond]

ouch.
What does that say about your dogmatic clinging to your favourite dogma?
Especially when your willful ignorance is taken into consideration?
Not to mention your misplaced arrogance??

I understand you meant the above quote as an attack on others, but the truth is it reveals so much more about you than it does those it was supposed to attack.

Not an attack on others, but their misguided worldview. Big difference.

Here's an example. Do the evos believe this BS?

It is not disagreement between science and religion. It's evolution and creation science. These guys got it WRONG again.