Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Shad]

Sure it does. By ruling out assumptions, he is requiring that all premises be explicitly stated and supported.

Changing the definition is not required for premises to be support

This model requires the very same faith-based assumptions as do other models, assumptions that were explicitly mentioned in the video you watched. You must assume that your senses and memory are reliable. You must assume that nature has immutable laws that it follows. You provide no proof for these assertions.

Which is a strawman argument as he must modify terminology to fit his argument


Merely claiming that something is axiom based is not enough. Someone could say that the statement "The Bible is inerrant" is not faith because it's axiom based.


[quote[Practice what you preach.[/QUOTE]

Already have hence why I am pointing out issues from your pseudo-philosophy sources and poor arguments.

Philosophy should be a mandatory course for any science program in my opinion.

 

[Parsimony]

I think it's appropriate since this is a "religious" forum.

Which has nothing to do with whether a scientist believes in God or not.

Will you buy evo scientists?

Only if you are talking specifically about biological evolution.

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.

Exactly. The leg and hip bone strongly support bipedal walking. Those are two of the most important things you look at when you want to determine locomotion. Why would it be otherwise? Look at that last picture, the one of the A. africanus pelvis. That is not Lucy's pelvis, it belongs to a different individual (so the "Lovejoy reshaped it" argument does not apply). That pelvis is clearly different from that of a chimpanzee.

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.

Part-time tree dwelling is not incompatible with bipedal walking any more than it is incompatible with knuckle-walking.

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.

Link please.

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.

Yet no response at all to that Australopithecus africanus pelvis I posted and how it is clearly more similar to that of a human and not a chimp.

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

Evidence?

I think you're nit-picking on the word.

The mutation is only called "unbreakable" by hyperbolic news headlines. It wasn't meant literally.

Your atheist scientists use it, so why can't I?

Please post a source stating that the scientists who discovered the mutation were atheists.

If you don't like it, take it up with them and their bone density mutation theories.

Again, the scientists weren't the ones calling it "unbreakable". How about you? Did you mean "unbreakable" literally when you said that humans once had unbreakable bones?

These people have a genetic disease that causes deformities in the mouth, which probably make eating difficult.

Evidence that it does actually 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.

If it enhances the ability to survive and reproduce, then it is a beneficial mutation. A mutation does not have to be wholely beneficial in order to aid survival, the benefits just have to more than offset the costs. No trait is wholely beneficial to begin with. Having a liver is advantageous because it allows us to detoxify chemicals that enter the body but it is disadvantageous because it can be injured, become cancerous and consumes material and energy resources that could potentially be used for other functions. The ability to clean the body, however, more than offsets the disadvantages of having it. Hence, it is beneficial overall.

Will you go for this mutation knowing all this?

What I would want is irrevelant. You are once again starting to brush against the straw-man of "a mutation is only beneficial if people would want it".

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

What are the negative effects? Even if people could somehow infect themselves with the mutation, their willingness or unwillingness to give themselves a particular mutation is irrelevant to whether it is advantageous to survival or not. That would be like arguing that baleen is a negative trait for baleen whales because humans wouldn't want to give themselves baleen. It is a non-sequitor. The fact that the mutated E.coli outpaced the growth of non-mutated E.coli demonstrates its overall survival advantage in its growth medium. The ability of Pseudomonas to metabolize nylon polymers is a new function because previous strains of the bacteria could not do it.

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

You have to put quote tags around each individual section that you want to address, with [/quote] at the end of each section that you want to address separately. It can be a bit tedious.

In regards to Ardipithecus, perhaps Lovejoy is correct. Maybe we did evolve from Ardipithecus and I've even seen it proposed that Australopithecus may have evolved from Ardipithecus. If so, then we would have evolved from both of them.Still, I don't think these hypotheses are yet well-supported by the scientific community. Maybe it will be some day, but we will probably need more remains first. Whether that is the case or not, it still does not make Australopithecus a chimpanzee.

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.

Another non-sequitor. Gorillas and orangutans are chimp-like but they are not chimps. Something being "X-like" does not make something "X". I am "like" my father" but I am not my father. Whales are "like" fish but they are not fish. Alcohol is "like" water, but it isn't water. Ardipithecus is chimp-like but it is not 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?

Only 1 million years, actually. What is there to explain? Nothing about evolution prevents humans and non-human apes from living at the same time. Why do you think it would?

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

The arm bone was found first and they were all found in the same spot.

 

[gnostic]

Philosophy should be a mandatory course for any science program in my opinion.

Not in my opinion.

There are too many different philosophies, and most of them are not related to science. So I think of them that are not related to science, or those that are very outdated view (philosophy), are actually a waste of time.

If I want to study science, I don't want to bog down by the sheer volume of them, especially when a lot of them are craps.

 

[james bond]

Which has nothing to do with whether a scientist believes in God or not.

Only if you are talking specifically about biological evolution.

Exactly. The leg and hip bone strongly support bipedal walking. Those are two of the most important things you look at when you want to determine locomotion. Why would it be otherwise? Look at that last picture, the one of the A. africanus pelvis. That is not Lucy's pelvis, it belongs to a different individual (so the "Lovejoy reshaped it" argument does not apply). That pelvis is clearly different from that of a chimpanzee.

Part-time tree dwelling is not incompatible with bipedal walking any more than it is incompatible with knuckle-walking.

Link please.

Yet no response at all to that Australopithecus africanus pelvis I posted and how it is clearly more similar to that of a human and not a chimp.

Evidence?

The mutation is only called "unbreakable" by hyperbolic news headlines. It wasn't meant literally.

Please post a source stating that the scientists who discovered the mutation were atheists.

Again, the scientists weren't the ones calling it "unbreakable". How about you? Did you mean "unbreakable" literally when you said that humans once had unbreakable bones?

Evidence that it does actually make eating difficult?

If it enhances the ability to survive and reproduce, then it is a beneficial mutation. A mutation does not have to be wholely beneficial in order to aid survival, the benefits just have to more than offset the costs. No trait is wholely beneficial to begin with. Having a liver is advantageous because it allows us to detoxify chemicals that enter the body but it is disadvantageous because it can be injured, become cancerous and consumes material and energy resources that could potentially be used for other functions. The ability to clean the body, however, more than offsets the disadvantages of having it. Hence, it is beneficial overall.

What I would want is irrevelant. You are once again starting to brush against the straw-man of "a mutation is only beneficial if people would want it".

What are the negative effects? Even if people could somehow infect themselves with the mutation, their willingness or unwillingness to give themselves a particular mutation is irrelevant to whether it is advantageous to survival or not. That would be like arguing that baleen is a negative trait for baleen whales because humans wouldn't want to give themselves baleen. It is a non-sequitor. The fact that the mutated E.coli outpaced the growth of non-mutated E.coli demonstrates its overall survival advantage in its growth medium. The ability of Pseudomonas to metabolize nylon polymers is a new function because previous strains of the bacteria could not do it.

You have to put quote tags around each individual section that you want to address, with

at the end of each section that you want to address separately. It can be a bit tedious.

In regards to Ardipithecus, perhaps Lovejoy is correct. Maybe we did evolve from Ardipithecus and I've even seen it proposed that Australopithecus may have evolved from Ardipithecus. If so, then we would have evolved from both of them.Still, I don't think these hypotheses are yet well-supported by the scientific community. Maybe it will be some day, but we will probably need more remains first. Whether that is the case or not, it still does not make Australopithecus a chimpanzee.

Another non-sequitor. Gorillas and orangutans are chimp-like but they are not chimps. Something being "X-like" does not make something "X". I am "like" my father" but I am not my father. Whales are "like" fish but they are not fish. Alcohol is "like" water, but it isn't water. Ardipithecus is chimp-like but it is not a chimp.

Only 1 million years, actually. What is there to explain? Nothing about evolution prevents humans and non-human apes from living at the same time. Why do you think it would?

The arm bone was found first and they were all found in the same spot.[/QUOTE]

Got it (quoting). It gets too convoluted, so will try to condense more.

Most of this has become tedious again in one post. I'm not that interested in Lucy the chimpanzee. You can believe what you want since most people do not care about Lucy anymore. You do not have the remains of all these supposed "apemen" who lived for a million years. They're not even apemen. What you have are chimpanzees and apes living with early homonids after the flood. Remember the footprints found 1000 miles away from the Lucy finding? The simplest explanation is best.

Here's the source for Nature:
Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". Nature 404 (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836.

The pelvis has been explained by Lovejoy:

I guess you missed these quotes I posted while away:
"Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis stated:

The australopithecines known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage. All this should make us wonder about the unusual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications. In such volumes not only are australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but as possessing such abilities as bipedality and tool-using and -making and such developments as the use of fire and specific social structures. Even facial features are happily (and non-scientifically reconstructed. (The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, p332.)

SECOND "APE MAN" OUT, ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo large brain, tool making and so on has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the apeman, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry." BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.18

His Lordship's scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes', he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.. Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level...,while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids....it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors. (Roger Lewin, BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.164, 165)

The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human (figure 5) that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." (Lord Solly Zuckerman, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.78)

...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi...existed at least at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern humans at four and a half million years... (CHARLES E. OXNARD Dean, Grad. School, Prof. Bio. and Anat., USC American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, 5/1979, p.274)"

In regards to mutations, I posted that athletes took steroids and are taking PEDs now. Steroids are mutated products. Probably, some PEDs, but not all are mutated, as well. I also found that tobacco has been genetically modified, so people who smoke are more likely to get cancer and have their genes mutated. We can and will find more of the after effects of mutations as more and more of these genetically modified (mutated) "products" come to the marketplace.

Are you a smoker, Parsimony? If so, here's something to think about. Smoking just 15 cigarettes harms your DNA, finds cancer study on gene mutation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...rms-DNA-finds-cancer-study-gene-mutation.html

Did you read the entire NEJOM link?

 

[metis]

at the end of each section that you want to address separately. It can be a bit tedious.

In regards to Ardipithecus, perhaps Lovejoy is correct. Maybe we did evolve from Ardipithecus and I've even seen it proposed that Australopithecus may have evolved from Ardipithecus. If so, then we would have evolved from both of them.Still, I don't think these hypotheses are yet well-supported by the scientific community. Maybe it will be some day, but we will probably need more remains first. Whether that is the case or not, it still does not make Australopithecus a chimpanzee.

Another non-sequitor. Gorillas and orangutans are chimp-like but they are not chimps. Something being "X-like" does not make something "X". I am "like" my father" but I am not my father. Whales are "like" fish but they are not fish. Alcohol is "like" water, but it isn't water. Ardipithecus is chimp-like but it is not a chimp.

Only 1 million years, actually. What is there to explain? Nothing about evolution prevents humans and non-human apes from living at the same time. Why do you think it would?

The arm bone was found first and they were all found in the same spot.

Got it (quoting). It gets too convoluted, so will try to condense more.

Most of this has become tedious again in one post. I'm not that interested in Lucy the chimpanzee. You can believe what you want since most people do not care about Lucy anymore. You do not have the remains of all these supposed "apemen" who lived for a million years. They're not even apemen. What you have are chimpanzees and apes living with early homonids after the flood. Remember the footprints found 1000 miles away from the Lucy finding? The simplest explanation is best.

Here's the source for Nature:
Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". Nature 404 (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836.

The pelvis has been explained by Lovejoy:



I guess you missed these quotes I posted while away:
"Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis stated:

The australopithecines known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage. All this should make us wonder about the unusual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications. In such volumes not only are australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but as possessing such abilities as bipedality and tool-using and -making and such developments as the use of fire and specific social structures. Even facial features are happily (and non-scientifically reconstructed. (The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, p332.)

SECOND "APE MAN" OUT, ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo large brain, tool making and so on has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the apeman, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry." BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.18

His Lordship's scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes', he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.. Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level...,while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids....it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors. (Roger Lewin, BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.164, 165)

The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human (figure 5) that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." (Lord Solly Zuckerman, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.78)

...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi...existed at least at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern humans at four and a half million years... (CHARLES E. OXNARD Dean, Grad. School, Prof. Bio. and Anat., USC American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, 5/1979, p.274)"

In regards to mutations, I posted that athletes took steroids and are taking PEDs now. Steroids are mutated products. Probably, some PEDs, but not all are mutated, as well. I also found that tobacco has been genetically modified, so people who smoke are more likely to get cancer and have their genes mutated. We can and will find more of the after effects of mutations as more and more of these genetically modified (mutated) "products" come to the marketplace.

Are you a smoker, Parsimony? If so, here's something to think about. Smoking just 15 cigarettes harms your DNA, finds cancer study on gene mutation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...rms-DNA-finds-cancer-study-gene-mutation.html

Did you read the entire NEJOM link?

Why is it that you continue to use older sources and opinions on Lucy when it has been made quite clear to you that we know so much more now how Lucy fits into early human evolution. As I mentioned previously, it's like judging psychology as if there's been no progress since Freud.

 

[Zosimus]

Changing the definition is not required for premises to be support

If knowledge is justified true belief, then kindly demonstrate that the claim "My eyes and memory are reliable" is

1) Justified and
2) True
3) I'll assume that you really believe it. You don't have to prove that.

Which is a strawman argument as he must modify terminology to fit his argument

It is not.

Philosophy should be a mandatory course for any science program in my opinion.

In that we agree, but I wonder how many scientists you would have if they studied philosophy first? Philosophy does, after all, refute most of what science so earnestly believes.

 

[Parsimony]

Got it (quoting). It gets too convoluted, so will try to condense more.

Most of this has become tedious again in one post. I'm not that interested in Lucy the chimpanzee. You can believe what you want since most people do not care about Lucy anymore. You do not have the remains of all these supposed "apemen" who lived for a million years. They're not even apemen. What you have are chimpanzees and apes living with early homonids after the flood. Remember the footprints found 1000 miles away from the Lucy finding? The simplest explanation is best.

Here's the source for Nature:
Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". Nature 404 (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836.

The pelvis has been explained by Lovejoy:

I guess you missed these quotes I posted while away:
"Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis stated:

The australopithecines known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage. All this should make us wonder about the unusual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications. In such volumes not only are australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but as possessing such abilities as bipedality and tool-using and -making and such developments as the use of fire and specific social structures. Even facial features are happily (and non-scientifically reconstructed. (The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, p332.)

SECOND "APE MAN" OUT, ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo large brain, tool making and so on has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the apeman, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry." BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.18

His Lordship's scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes', he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.. Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level...,while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids....it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors. (Roger Lewin, BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.164, 165)

The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human (figure 5) that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." (Lord Solly Zuckerman, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.78)

...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi...existed at least at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern humans at four and a half million years... (CHARLES E. OXNARD Dean, Grad. School, Prof. Bio. and Anat., USC American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, 5/1979, p.274)"

In regards to mutations, I posted that athletes took steroids and are taking PEDs now. Steroids are mutated products. Probably, some PEDs, but not all are mutated, as well. I also found that tobacco has been genetically modified, so people who smoke are more likely to get cancer and have their genes mutated. We can and will find more of the after effects of mutations as more and more of these genetically modified (mutated) "products" come to the marketplace.

Are you a smoker, Parsimony? If so, here's something to think about. Smoking just 15 cigarettes harms your DNA, finds cancer study on gene mutation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...rms-DNA-finds-cancer-study-gene-mutation.html

Did you read the entire NEJOM link?

You failed to address a lot of important things in my post. Are you going to fix that?

You also haven't responded to post #2342 yet.

 

[Shad]

Not in my opinion.

There are too many different philosophies, and most of them are not related to science. So I think of them that are not related to science, or those that are very outdated view (philosophy), are actually a waste of time.

If I want to study science, I don't want to bog down by the sheer volume of them, especially when a lot of them are craps.

Methodology used by science follows forms of logic. An introduction course covering logic and philosophy would prevent people like Hawking saying "Philosophy is dead" which is a statement one can only make by using philosophy.

 

[Shad]

If knowledge is justified true belief, then kindly demonstrate that the claim "My eyes and memory are reliable" is

Why? I never made an such statement so have no need in defending it.

It is not.

It is since he makes his own definition of knowledge to fit the argument. This is a misrepresentation.

In that we agree, but I wonder how many scientists you would have if they studied philosophy first?

WQB requirements make it possible for a student to follow their major while still gaining credits from philosophy courses without extra workload or time. The issue is many students choose other courses such as history or literature. A drop would be expected given the unfavorable view philosophy in public education and pop culture. I expect a grandfathering of the term would be used if such a change was made. Perhaps an alternative to mandatory courses would be to develop a simply divide so many other fields have between developers and technicians similar to job positions.

 

[james bond]

You failed to address a lot of important things in my post. Are you going to fix that?

You also haven't responded to post #2342 yet.

Like I said, it gets tedious, so why don't we leave it at that? Most of it is not important to me, but only to you and you do not read my links.

 

[james bond]

Why is it that you continue to use older sources and opinions on Lucy when it has been made quite clear to you that we know so much more now how Lucy fits into early human evolution. As I mentioned previously, it's like judging psychology as if there's been no progress since Freud.

Ha ha. Still here? You told me to take care and I said good bye, so I thought we were done.

 

[metis]

Ha ha. Still here? You told me to take care and I said good bye, so I thought we were done.

At my age, I tend to forget a lot.

 

[Parsimony]

Like I said, it gets tedious, so why don't we leave it at that?

You can't simply ignore what your opponent says because it's inconvenient for you. That's a losing strategy. Your last post didn't say anything at all about nylonase or the negative effects that you claim it to have. Why not? Are you unable to defend that claim? What about humans having unbreakable bones in the past? Did you mean that literally? You also made no comment on the comparison between the STS-14 Australopithecus africanus pelvis and that of a modern chimpanzee. Do you really think those came from the same kind of animal? Were you unable to find any statements from medical professionals that the bony growth on the roof of those peoples' mouths made it hard for them to eat? If you want me to, I can try to condense my points again in the form of a numbered list if that will make it easier for you to respond.

Most of it is not important to me, but only to you

If they were not important to you then why did you bring them up? You were the one who introduced the claim to this debate that mutations cannot create new functions and that Australopithecus was a chimpanzee.

you do not read my links.

Oh, so now you require that I read your links, huh? If I remember correctly, you outright stated in a past post that you intentionally ignored some of my links:

The rest can be discarded as you do not provide answers in your own words, but links.

So it's okay if you ignore parts of my posts but I cannot ignore yours? Sounds like you've got a double-standard going there. Out of curiosity, which of your links do you think I have not read?

 

[james bond]

At my age, I tend to forget a lot.

No prob.

 

[james bond]

You can't simply ignore what your opponent says because it's inconvenient for you. That's a losing strategy. Your last post didn't say anything at all about nylonase or the negative effects that you claim it to have. Why not? Are you unable to defend that claim? What about humans having unbreakable bones in the past? Did you mean that literally? You also made no comment on the comparison between the STS-14 Australopithecus africanus pelvis and that of a modern chimpanzee. Do you really think those came from the same kind of animal? Were you unable to find any statements from medical professionals that the bony growth on the roof of those peoples' mouths made it hard for them to eat? If you want me to, I can try to condense my points again in the form of a numbered list if that will make it easier for you to respond.

If they were not important to you then why did you bring them up? You were the one who introduced the claim to this debate that mutations cannot create new functions and that Australopithecus was a chimpanzee.

Oh, so now you require that I read your links, huh? If I remember correctly, you outright stated in a past post that you intentionally ignored some of my links:

So it's okay if you ignore parts of my posts but I cannot ignore yours? Sounds like you've got a double-standard going there. Out of curiosity, which of your links do you think I have not read?

You admit that you do not read my posts and the links in answer to your questions, so why should I answer your questions? It also means that you ignored what I have been saying, so according to your logic, it was a losing strategy. I agree you lost.

I provided more than enough evidence that Lucy was a chimpanzee, including a youtube to answer STS-14. I can post the answer for you, but I can't watch it and comprehend it for you ha ha. For around the fourth time, how do you explain the footprints found 1,000 miles away? .

The Creation Museum provides good photos and explanation of Lucy http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/lucy/ .

Where did I "outright stated in a past post that you intentionally ignored some of my links?" Provide the evidence.

Explain nylonaise. And I already explained "unbreakable." Go back and read what you can do.

No point going further since you do not read my posts AND the links I post in answer to your questions. For someone who asks a lot of questions, I wondered why you didn't learn much or why you cannot explain things in an interesting manner.

 

[james bond]

Here's an interesting passage about non-believers and final judgment. In his second epistle, Peter said that in the last days, scoffers would reject two things in order to deny a coming judgment by God: a supernatural creation, and the witness of the judgment Flood of Noah’s time (2 Peter 3:3–7).

 

[Parsimony]

You admit that you do not read my posts and the links in answer to your questions, so why should I answer your questions?

You, once again, have mis-characterized what I said. Where did I ever say that I did not read your posts or links? I did not. To quote myself:

So it's okay if you ignore parts of my posts but I cannot ignore yours? Sounds like you've got a double-standard going there.

As a matter of fact, I do read everything that you send to me. I was bringing up the double standard you presented when you said that you were free to discard any links that I posted while at the same time expecting me to read the ones that you send.

It also means that you ignored what I have been saying, so according to your logic, it was a losing strategy. I agree you lost.

If that's the case, then you lost several pages back when you started ignoring entire posts of mine, including #2342.

I provided more than enough evidence that Lucy was a chimpanzee, including a youtube to answer STS-14.

You didn't provide any evidence for that. What video are talking about? I don't recall you sending me any videos to look at that talked about STS-14 at all. If you posted it during the time that I was away, then you should realize that I'm not going to necessarily read posts that are not addressed to me. You need to send me notifications if you want me to read or watch something. If you are talking about that video you posted with Lovejoy in it, he didn't mention STS-14 at all. I don't even remember him talking about any australopithecus pelvis. If he did, please provide me with the specific place in the video where he did.

I can post the answer for you, but I can't watch it and comprehend it for you ha ha. For around the fourth time, how do you explain the footprints found 1,000 miles away?

This is only the second time I recall you saying anything to me about footprints. Are you talking about the Laetoli footprints? You do realize that Australopithecus had a very broad range, right? A. africanus fossils have been found as far south as South Africa, for example. Even if it did turn out that the Laetoli footprints were not made by Australopithecus, so what?

The Creation Museum provides good photos and explanation of Lucy http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/lucy/ .

Of course there is a lot of guesswork when it comes to an extinct animal's physical appearance. Those things are usually not preserved. Plenty enough was preserved, however, to let us know that Australopithecus was at least facultatively bipedal.

Where did I "outright stated in a past post that you intentionally ignored some of my links?" Provide the evidence.

I already did post the evidence. You said:

The rest can be discarded as you do not provide answers in your own words, but links.

I shouldn't have to spoon feed you the information when I presented the link for you to read for yourself.

Explain nylonaise.

The nylonases are mutated genes in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas that allow them to produce enzymes which can break down nylon polymers.

And I already explained "unbreakable."

Then you didn't mean it literally? Okay then. That's all I wanted to know. We can move on from that now.

No point going further since you do not read my posts AND the links I post in answer to your questions.

I do, at least those that you send me notifications to read, that is.

For someone who asks a lot of questions, I wondered why you didn't learn much or why you cannot explain things in an interesting manner.

It's not my job to "explain things in an interesting manner". That's entirely subjective.

I guess you missed these quotes I posted while away:
"Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis stated:

The australopithecines known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage. All this should make us wonder about the unusual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications. In such volumes not only are australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but as possessing such abilities as bipedality and tool-using and -making and such developments as the use of fire and specific social structures. Even facial features are happily (and non-scientifically reconstructed. (The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, p332.)

SECOND "APE MAN" OUT, ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo large brain, tool making and so on has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the apeman, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry." BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.18

His Lordship's scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes', he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.. Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level...,while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids....it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors. (Roger Lewin, BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.164, 165)

The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human (figure 5) that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." (Lord Solly Zuckerman, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.78)

...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi...existed at least at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern humans at four and a half million years... (CHARLES E. OXNARD Dean, Grad. School, Prof. Bio. and Anat., USC American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, 5/1979, p.274)"

Like I said, I didn't read the stuff that you don't send to me. Those views that Australopithecus was a knuckle-walker are in the small minority among biologists. As it turns out, Charles Oxnard has actually changed his mind since then and does believe that Australopithecus has relevance to our evolution and was capable of bipedal motion.

In regards to mutations, I posted that athletes took steroids and are taking PEDs now. Steroids are mutated products. Probably, some PEDs, but not all are mutated, as well. I also found that tobacco has been genetically modified, so people who smoke are more likely to get cancer and have their genes mutated. We can and will find more of the after effects of mutations as more and more of these genetically modified (mutated) "products" come to the marketplace.

Red herring.

Are you a smoker, Parsimony? If so, here's something to think about. Smoking just 15 cigarettes harms your DNA, finds cancer study on gene mutation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...rms-DNA-finds-cancer-study-gene-mutation.html

I don't smoke.

Did you read the entire NEJOM link?

If I knew what NEJOM stood for I could answer you. What does it mean?

Here's the source for Nature:
Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". Nature 404 (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836.

I don't seem to be able to locate the actual article from those links. Mark Collard has said in other, more recent, works that Australopithecines were capable of bipedal motion, however.

The pelvis has been explained by Lovejoy:

When did he say anything about a pelvis in this video, let alone that it was the pelvis of a chimpanzee? It is interesting to note that, in that very video you posted, Lovejoy pointed out yet another difference between Australopithecus and chimpanzees: the canine teeth. I guess you missed that part.

 

[james bond]

You, once again, have mis-characterized what I said. Where did I ever say that I did not read your posts or links? I did not. To quote myself:

As a matter of fact, I do read everything that you send to me. I was bringing up the double standard you presented when you said that you were free to discard any links that I posted while at the same time expecting me to read the ones that you send.

If that's the case, then you lost several pages back when you started ignoring entire posts of mine, including #2342.

You didn't provide any evidence for that. What video are talking about? I don't recall you sending me any videos to look at that talked about STS-14 at all. If you posted it during the time that I was away, then you should realize that I'm not going to necessarily read posts that are not addressed to me. You need to send me notifications if you want me to read or watch something. If you are talking about that video you posted with Lovejoy in it, he didn't mention STS-14 at all. I don't even remember him talking about any australopithecus pelvis. If he did, please provide me with the specific place in the video where he did.

This is only the second time I recall you saying anything to me about footprints. Are you talking about the Laetoli footprints? You do realize that Australopithecus had a very broad range, right? A. africanus fossils have been found as far south as South Africa, for example. Even if it did turn out that the Laetoli footprints were not made by Australopithecus, so what?

Of course there is a lot of guesswork when it comes to an extinct animal's physical appearance. Those things are usually not preserved. Plenty enough was preserved, however, to let us know that Australopithecus was at least facultatively bipedal.

I already did post the evidence. You said:

I shouldn't have to spoon feed you the information when I presented the link for you to read for yourself.

The nylonases are mutated genes in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas that allow them to produce enzymes which can break down nylon polymers.

Then you didn't mean it literally? Okay then. That's all I wanted to know. We can move on from that now.

I do, at least those that you send me notifications to read, that is.

It's not my job to "explain things in an interesting manner". That's entirely subjective.

Like I said, I didn't read the stuff that you don't send to me. Those views that Australopithecus was a knuckle-walker are in the small minority among biologists. As it turns out, Charles Oxnard has actually changed his mind since then and does believe that Australopithecus has relevance to our evolution and was capable of bipedal motion.

Red herring.

I don't smoke.

If I knew what NEJOM stood for I could answer you. What does it mean?

I don't seem to be able to locate the actual article from those links. Mark Collard has said in other, more recent, works that Australopithecines were capable of bipedal motion, however.

When did he say anything about a pelvis in this video, let alone that it was the pelvis of a chimpanzee? It is interesting to note that, in that very video you posted, Lovejoy pointed out yet another difference between Australopithecus and chimpanzees: the canine teeth. I guess you missed that part.

Lovejoy thinks chimpanzees and apes evolved from humans. The opposite of what evos believe. His earlier vid discussed STS-14 which corroborates what I said in beginning and which you tried to sidetrack by claiming quote mining..

The Laetoli footprints show that early hominids lived with Lucy and the other chimpanzee-like apes. Otherwise, where are all the other australopithecina fossils? What do you have -- two fossils Lucy and Ardi?

So what does nylonases being mutated mean? What are you claiming?

Certainly, not being interesting is why I limit our discussion. Why not just expand your points such as nylonase and we can discuss this instead of rambling about several topics?

The benefit I see from discussing mutations is that I think I've shown that the simple cell is not "simple," but complex and thus intelligently designed.

This should take care of all your past posts and Lovejoy. Read #2352, as well.

 

[viole]

Lovejoy thinks chimpanzees and apes evolved from humans.

Does the Bible say that apes evolved from humans? That would entail that apes are the result of a microevolution from humans. Ergo, we would be the same kind, anyway. Unless, you turned into a macroevolutionist all of a sudden.

So, do you believe he is right? If not, why do you take seriously anything he is saying?

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

The only who's closed-minded is you, James Bond.

For instance, you keep stating and associating evolution with "atheism" and people who evolution to be "atheists". This is where you are very narrow-minded, because leibowde84 and parsimony here are both Christians and theists, and yet they accept the theory of evolution ( not just of Natural Selection, but other possible mechanisms, like Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, etc) to be a valid and well-substantiated explanation (meaning theory backed up by verifiable evidences) for biological changes over number of generations (time).

You say you are open-minded, to both theism and science, but that certainly not true, because you reject evolution, where as both leibowde84 and parsimony don't; which make them more open-minded than you. And leibowde84 and parsimony are not the only ones who are Christians and theists who accept evolution in this forum; I have mentioned their names because they are the ones currently and recently participating in this thread.

Even the current pope - Pope Francis - is more open-minded than you, and he the biggest name in Christianity and he accepted evolution as the theory explains the facts. And the current stance of the Roman Catholic Church is that evolutionary biology is a fact, and it's theory well-substantiated and grounded on facts.

And Charles Darwin was never an atheist. He was a Christian all his life, but he did admit in his letter that he was leaning towards agnosticism, not atheism. He clearly in that same letter rejected atheism.

For you to attack evolution because you think evolutionists to be the same as atheists, with your continuous absurd "atheist scientists" jabs is not only generalising, but you are continually attack the same straw man over and over again, not learn from your mistakes, is a classic case of closed-mindedness.

I think a large part of your rejection of evolution is due to ego and to your ignorance on evolution.

Your ignorance is clearly confuse evolution with the Big Bang. The Big Bang is not biology, and evolution is not astrophysics, and yet you continued to associate the two as if you are speaking the same subject. That's not only showed that you are closed-minded, but ignorant to boot.

How about if you did some ACTUAL reading and research on evolution and the Big Bang, so you understand what they actually teach. You will be doing yourself a favour if you know what you are talking about.

And lastly, I am well-acquainted with the bible, because as a teenager, I nearly joined my sister's church. At that time, I thought the contents in bible were historical.

I didn't join her church because I realised I was ready, because I would have been joining her church on the basis of her faith, not mine. So I sought nearly join another church 2 years later, but got into very heated argument with my pastor, whom I thought was my friend. And I believe in Jesus and the gospels at that time.

I was already very well-acquainted with the bible, but not much on church history, especially with its early history and its stance against heresy. When I read about the gospel of Thomas in the newspaper, I was interested in reading a translation of this gospel not found in the bible. I didn't know at that time, the gospel of Thomas was associated with Gnosticism. Instead of explaining to me about Gnosticism and why the gospel of Thomas was rejected, he got angry with me of being curious and asking him questions in the first place.

At that time, I couldn't understand his anger, so I didn't join his church. A year or two later, I had stopped reading the bible altogether, and didn't seek any more churches, not because I turned towards atheism. No, I was merely very busy with my life, like my studies, helping my parents with their restaurant, and working as civil engineer after studying.

I didn't touch the bible for 14 years, though I still believe in the bible. I was changing my career path at that time - in computer science. In my last year in my studies, I started making my own website called Timeless Myths, in 1999, and a year later (after graduating), I decided to add section on the Arthurian Legends to Timeless Myths. Only then, did I picked up the tbible again, for my research on Joseph of Arimathea for my webpages on Grail legends. At that time, I still myself as a Christian, but a Christian without a church, because I still believe in Jesus.

I ended up the next months re-reading the entire bible, of both OT and NT, but my view had changed, because I could see flaws that I didn't see when I was a teenager, not merely in the bible itself, but from church teachings. My understanding of the bible were flawed, because I had allowed church interpretations of the bible, to cloud my judgement.

If my studies in civil engineering and computer science taught me anything, the one valuable thing I learned by heart, is to teach that I should verify and test what I read and what I have learn. With my research on myths for website, I had learned to examine and read more than just one source, and examine them against each other.

If anything, James, I read the bible with more open-minded than I did when I was a teenager. I have learned to read the bible for myself, without the church interference with how I should think.

I have re-examine not only Genesis creation and flood, but also what were written in the gospels, letters and Revelation.

For instance, I took Matthew's words at face value, when he quoted the sign of Isaiah 7:14 associating with Jesus' birth; as a teenager, I didn't bother to cross-reference the two sources. Upon re-reading Isaiah 7 (and 8), fourteen years later, I realised that gospel's interpretation is wrong, and the sign had nothing to do with Jesus; the sign actually had nothing to do with any messiah whatsoever.

A few years after starting up timeless myths and re-reading, I viewed myself not as an atheist, but as an agnostic. But the funny thing is that I didn't even know what agnosticism is, until I had joined Free2Code forum (2003), of which YmirGF was also a member of.

You keep saying I don't understand what theism is or the bible, but you don't know me, nor my past history. That may be true when concerning the church themselves or church customs, but I understand the bible more than you think I do.

And think about this, James. Before shooting yourself in the foot as you customarily do, many of the atheists and agnostics at RF, were former Christians, so it is more than possible for to be just as knowledgeable as you, when it come to bible studies. They are not as ignorant as you think they are.

But it bring me back to same questions I have asked you before, which clearly you have ignored:

Why do you ignore theists can accept evolution too?​

This question comes from you repeatedly stating evolutionists as "atheist scientists". You are ignoring the facts that there are Christians out there, who do accept evolution. Do you not see, james, that the only closed-minded one is yourself?

>>Why do you ignore theists can accept evolution too?<<

Sorry, I ignored your past posts, gnostic, but at the time I thought you made a lot of points but was attacking me regulary. One thing about me is I started with Christianity in 2012 and I thought the Bible was confusing in regards to the people parts. I mean it brought up questions such as why did God order children and women killed? How does someone live to be over 900 years old? What does the Bible say about homosexuality? What does it say about marriage and divorce? How do I explain the Trinity? And more. Thus, I focused on the science parts and the practical parts such as Psalms and what Jesus taught. I still can't explain all the people parts and what happened, but Bible studies and websites such as gotquestions.org have helped. So, the way I read the Bible is piecemeal and sometimes I put it down and not read it for a while. I will be starting to read it again sensing that it's time again. I do not think it's beneficial to just read the whole thing except to become familiarized with how it is laid out and how it works.

I can see no other purpose for evolution than to discredit the Bible and creation science. It has always been a war since the 1800s and it has become a battle for the minds of our children since Scopes and the court rulings in 1967 (?) and the 1980s. Evolution started on the ideas of Charles Lyell and a Scottish farmer named James Hutton in 1795. They were both atheists. The battle escalated into a war in the 1800s and it continues today with creation science being excluded from science, the spawning of mutated products and the battle over our children's minds. All worth fighting for. I'll re-read some of your points and post again.