Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Zosimus]

128 pages and still no evidence.

<Sarcasm>SHOCKING</sarcasm>

Your post presupposes the following:

1. It is possible to have evidence for something.
2. It is necessary to have evidence for something.

I dispute both claims.

The first one fails because attempts to provide evidence for something commit logical fallacies.
The second one fails because if you think that everything requires evidence and if you think that evidence must be sense evidence, then there is no sense evidence to support claim 2. Thus, by its own criterion, it should be rejected.

 

[McBell]

Your post presupposes the following

Only if you read that nonsense into said post looking to push your agenda....

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Your post presupposes the following:

1. It is possible to have evidence for something.
2. It is necessary to have evidence for something.

I dispute both claims.

The first one fails because attempts to provide evidence for something commit logical fallacies.
The second one fails because if you think that everything requires evidence and if you think that evidence must be sense evidence, then there is no sense evidence to support claim 2. Thus, by its own criterion, it should be rejected.

That you posted that is evidence FOR the idea that out there somewhere is an individual willing to do intense mental gymnastics to support an untenable position.

 

[Zosimus]

Let's see, I can think of MIRACLES, but no.

• In 1 Kings 18:39 after God miraculously consumed Elijah’s sacrifice with fire from heaven, the Israelites proclaimed, “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!” But the prophets of Baal apparently did not submit to the Lord God, and they were executed in verse 40.
• Rahab was saved by faith (Hebrews 11:31) and the rest of Jericho was destroyed because of their unbelief. Why did they remain in unbelief even though they were still terrified of Israel 40 years after the miraculous plagues in Egypt (Joshua 2:9–11)?
• After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, many Jews believed on Jesus (John 11:45), but the chief priests and Pharisees tried to kill Lazarus to cover up the evidence (John 12:10–11).
• It is amazing that after seeing the dumb speak, the blind see, the lame walk, the sick healed, devils cast out, and the dead raised, that the Pharisees attributed Christ’s miracles to the devil (Matthew 12:24) and plotted to have Him killed (Matthew 26:4). In light of those miracles and Pilate finding no fault in Him, it doesn’t make sense that so many people cried out for him to be crucified (Matthew 27:23).
• In Acts 4:16 after Peter healed the lame man, the religious leaders admitted a notable miracle had been done—they could not deny it—but they responded in continued unbelief and threatened the disciples not to preach Jesus anymore.

PHYSICAL PROOF: He shows up at your door and does miracles, but people will think it's a hoax or magic tricks. Lawrence Krauss said if he rearranged the stars to spell out, "I am here," but some other atheist said that those on the other side of the planet would not see and thus it wouldn't be proof. We may not have the physical, but we can look at the other evidence to see such as using science, logic and reasoning, facts and history backs up what is stated in the Bible.

PAIN AND SUFFERING: Yes. However, in this world it will be explained away as something that happens whether there is a God or not.

So, in effect, you're right. What tips the scale is Faith or belief that God exists.

Well, certainly if I saw some guy say, "If I'm a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and kill those soldiers" and it actually happened, once I got through changing my underwear, I would rethink my agnostic position. However, let's look at this a different way. Let's suppose that we go to a Christian get together and we see there a person with a severe physical problem (in a wheelchair, club foot, whatever). One can only assume that if this person really believed in his religion and if that religion were true, then he or she would have already received a miraculous healing, right?

 

[Zosimus]

That you posted that is evidence FOR the idea that out there somewhere is an individual willing to do intense mental gymnastics to support an untenable position.

Your conclusion is underdetermined.

 

[Shad]

Let's go back to the beginning.

This is the video in question. In this video (at about 1:02) he points out that even if you do the gravitational acceleration principle yourself, you still are assuming that your senses and reason are reliable.

Human senses can be, and have been, unreliable. Hence reviews, experiments and dialogue from other than a single person matters. Again your video changes knowledge to his own definition making it stacking the deck since only his definition

To make it simple, let's just say "Shad's senses are reliable."

Stacking the deck

Is this knowledge? Is this justified true belief? How can you justify this statement?

Irrelevant as it is never just one person's opinion regarding the topics we are discussing. Again, if using the video's definition of knowledge there is no point in rebutting the rest of the argument as the first premise is flawed. I do not agree with the defination nor it is a standard one used from philosophy.

I think you misunderstand the point of my comment. Anyone who has studied much philosophy realizes that science is on very, very shaky ground.

Not really as anyone that has studied the philosophy of science would of realized a long time ago science produces models which are approximation of what we believe happens in the real world. Never read Popper have you?

I wonder how many scientists there would be if every scientist had to confront the fact that science is about as reliable as a two-legged stool.

None as many many be fooled by outdated thinking from someone that confuses a model as if it were a 100% fact of the real world or for that matter care. You want science to be absolute so your arguments appear to work. However since it isn't you are left with nothing.

 

[Sapiens]

Mankind is based on crossbreeding genetic twins? Big problems there.

 

[james bond]

So now you say that it was fat? How can you possibly know?

You have only two criteria for determining whether an animal is a chimpanzee or not? Just two? No taxonomist would rely on a measly two criteria to categorize an animal. They would look at all of the different aspects of its morphology (dentition, pelvis, cranium, joints, limb proportions and so on) and how they are similar and different from other existing animals. You and your sources have pointed out the similarities between Australopithecus and chimpanzees many times. Indeed there are many similarities between the two. Australopithecines are chimp-like. No doubt about it. However, you seem to ignore the differences between them, This is where your classification argument messes up. You can't look at the similarities and ignore the differences: you have to look at both of them at once. If you only paid attention to the similarities between gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees while ignoring their differences, you could just as easily argue that gorillas and orangutans are chimps as well. We know that they are not chimps, however, because there are also differences in addition to similarities. Let's do some comparing:

Similarities between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus
-Both have similar brain case sizes (up to 500 cc).
-Australopithecus was probably covered with fur like chimps are.
-Both have long arms and curved fingers good for grasping and climbing.
-Both have arms longer than their legs.
-Both were/are social animals.
-A. afarensis may have had some ability to knuckle-walk like chimps.
-Some Australopithecus were similar in size to chimps.

Differences between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus
-Australopithecus pelvises are wider than they are tall, chimp pelvises are taller than they are wide.
-Australopithecus had knees that could lock, chimps do not.
-Australopithecus does not have adductable toes, whereas chimps do.
-Australopithecus has smaller canines than chimps.
-Australopithecus had a less prognathic (protruding) jaw than chimps.
-Australopithecus had arched feet, chimps do not.
-Australopithecus had a foramen magnum closer to the base of the skull than chimps.

So I'm willing to acknowledge both the similarities and the differences. What about you? What, specifically, are your two criteria?


I don't think you know what a straw-man is. A straw-man is a misrepresentation of an argument such that it appears to be arguing something that it is not. You are indeed arguing that Australopithecines are chimpanzees. I can quote the many times you have said this if need be. If you think they are chimpanzees, then you must also think that their anatomy is consistent with genus "Pan" (which is the genus to which chimpanzees belong) and therefore that they should be reclassified as Pan africanus, Pan afarensis, etc. instead of Australopithecus. If you do not think this should be done, then you are admitting that the morphological differences are large enough to warrant inclusion in their own distinct genus separate from Pan.

Then I was correct in that you have no argument against it being a mutation which creates a new function (the ability to digest nylon polymers).

I don't recall any of the your links or videos stating that Australopithecus was a chimpanzee. Plenty stated that it was an ape or chimp-like. Indeed, both of those statements are true. But none stated that it was a chimp. If they did, please quote the exact sentence where they said it was.

I'm not sure what you think I missed in it. I'm well aware of the deformities you are talking about. If they do not interfere with survival and reproduction, then they are not disadvantageous. You never did provide any statements from medical professionals or from people who had the mutation that it was harder for them to eat.

He's right, it is a chimpanzee-like ape. That's not the same as saying it's a chimp.

Circular reasoning would be if an argument is used to support itself. The argument, however, is supported by physical evidence such as genetics (pseudogenes and ERVs being good ones), the fossil record and biogeography.

Here is one. It demonstrates that several different dating techniques yield consistent dates for the same event. Here is another one showing radiometric dating to be consistent with stratigraphy.

I was a small child at the time and I took it literally.

No, I've changed my mind since I first read it. That was a very long time ago.

A bunch of floods happening all over the world is not the same as a flood that is so large that it covers every square inch of dry land, including mountaintops. Your link provides no evidence of such being the case. What about the dates being mentioned in the article? Do you believe those?

I've already told you the experiments: DNA studies, dating techniques, biogeographic studies.

Ok, thick.

Thank you for acknowledging the similarities and differences.

The general criteria to determine between apes and human fossils are:
For a fossil skull to be identified as human it should have a fairly large brain capacity - over 1,000 cc's, and a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose.

Creationists think that the reputed apeman transitional forms used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of fossil evidence. Lovejoy does this in the first vid I posted in# 2518. For example, he shows the teeth of Ardi (?) and it has been reconstructed to look human. It should have canines as you stated (I checked on my evo website and it too states smaller "canines."

I think we're disagreeing on the terms because of our views.

So that's where you were going. Ok, mutations can create a new function such as the ability to digest nylon polymers. I agree. Are you happy now?

I'll look over your radiometric dating links when I get the time. Will respond afterward as well as respond to your comments on the Noah's Flood and the rest.

So, you changed your mind as an adult (I assume) and not as a child? I think my evo source website started around 2008.

I think most people read the Bible and take it literally. What I am getting into now are the people parts. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions that some Christians take from it. What's important to me is what Jesus Christ taught. Ok, that's my bit about religion.

 

[james bond]

we agree on the Chapter Two episode a science

the rest of the book is history and nonfiction....but...
there is also a lot of Godly action that can only be accepted with faith in play

I can explain Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, but bringing back someone from the dead is another matter. I can read the eyewitness accounts, but can't explain how it happened (am assuming it did happen).

 

[james bond]

May I ask why you did not use an example of irreducible complexity which is applicable to humans?

Ciao

- viole

The vid alludes to irreducible complexity and the guy with the tie clip argument is absurd while the one who claims the injector makes a better argument. Yet, we now know the injector came after the flagellum. The argument includes complexity. To reduce the argument to simplicity changes it to a different criteria.

 

[james bond]

OK, let's play along this line of thinking. Distilling the non-religious portion from the hotchpotch, and call this 'creation science'. What would that be like?
- Different species were created "as is" since the beginning of life. What was the mechanism behind? Without the religious fairy tale overlay, you don't have an explanation.
- The concept of "species" corresponds to natural kinds akin to the concept of chemical elements. This flies in the face of empirical observations.
- Species are static and do not change in time. This flies in the face of empirical observations.

Conclusion: The case for teaching "creation science" in classrooms is even weaker than the case for teaching creation myths.

Instead of changing the subject, let's stick to the video. It's a silly argument and a silly, simplistic one which doesn't rate much merit. Or do you actually believe it? Give us some real world examples to support it.

What we're discussing here is creationism vs evolution. If you want an example of creation science, then there is natural selection.

 

[james bond]

Well, certainly if I saw some guy say, "If I'm a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and kill those soldiers" and it actually happened, once I got through changing my underwear, I would rethink my agnostic position. However, let's look at this a different way. Let's suppose that we go to a Christian get together and we see there a person with a severe physical problem (in a wheelchair, club foot, whatever). One can only assume that if this person really believed in his religion and if that religion were true, then he or she would have already received a miraculous healing, right?

I didn't mean to ignore you earlier, but got involved with another poster who also uses many points. My apologies. The fire from heaven probably would not happen because God is spiritual and our world is physical. However, we could have some other explanation for it such as an large propane tanker explosion and the debris fell on someone. Christians disagree on things. For example, the appearance of God as stated in the Bible. It would have to involve using something physical to communicate or convey information. If a Jesus spirit appears, then I would think it's being imagined or in a dream. I do not know about miraculous healings, but have seen and heard of them as you. I would tend to doubt it, except maybe as a placebo. It would be some Christian get-together that I've never personally witnessed.

The last event I witnessed similar to something I'm not sure whether to believe or not, was mass hypnosis of children picked at random at the state fair. Unless, the children were already pre-selected and instructed to do what the hypnotist told them, I do not have an explanation except what they claim is the power of suggestions works.

 

[gnostic]

I can explain Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, but bringing back someone from the dead is another matter. I can read the eyewitness accounts, but can't explain how it happened (am assuming it did happen).

That's assuming that bringing a person back to life, like Lazarus, did happen.

There are no evidences to support that it did happened as written by one of the gospels.

And that's assuming the gospels were eyewitness accounts. Each gospel was written anonymous. The names given (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), the evangelists, were only attributed to these 4 names at later date.

Most experts seemed to agree that gospel of Mark was the earliest (around mid-60s to early 70s), with that of Matthew's and Luke's roughly about the same time in late 70s to early 80s, with John's written last in the 90s if not later still. These timeline of when these gospels are just estimates, because we can never know for sure.

They were written at the very least, a generation (with GoMk), but most likely 2 generations, but certainly 2 generations later with GoMt & GoL.

Seriously, I doubt either these so-called Matthew and Luke were eyewitnesses to Mary's pregnancy or Jesus' birth.

According to tradition, Joseph died years before Jesus' ministry in Judaea and Galilee, so it highly doubtful that Joseph shared anything with the author of GoMt, which has Joseph the centre of attention.

While with GoL, it focused more on Mary than Joseph, but again I doubt that Mary would have share anything with the author of GoL. Mary would have to be ancient by the time of GoL was written.

Also, with GoMt, if someone was an eyewitness in the court of Herod the Great (referring to Matthew 2), I very much doubt that it (eyewitness) would be the author of Matthew's. Someone would need access to Herod's palace, I doubt that any of the apostles were there.

That along with contradictions between two gospels and historical inaccuracies of GoL, regarding to events surrounding Jesus' birth, neither of these two gospels are reliable sources.

 

[james bond]

That's assuming that bringing a person back to life, like Lazarus, did happen.

There are no evidences to support that it did happened as written by one of the gospels.

And that's assuming the gospels were eyewitness accounts. Each gospel was written anonymous. The names given (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), the evangelists, were only attributed to these 4 names at later date.

Most experts seemed to agree that gospel of Mark was the earliest (around mid-60s to early 70s), with that of Matthew's and Luke's roughly about the same time in late 70s to early 80s, with John's written last in the 90s if not later still. These timeline of when these gospels are just estimates, because we can never know for sure.

They were written at the very least, a generation (with GoMk), but most likely 2 generations, but certainly 2 generations later with GoMt & GoL.

Seriously, I doubt either these so-called Matthew and Luke were eyewitnesses to Mary's pregnancy or Jesus' birth.

According to tradition, Joseph died years before Jesus' ministry in Judaea and Galilee, so it highly doubtful that Joseph shared anything with the author of GoMt, which has Joseph the centre of attention.

While with GoL, it focused more on Mary than Joseph, but again I doubt that Mary would have share anything with the author of GoL. Mary would have to be ancient by the time of GoL was written.

Also, with GoMt, if someone was an eyewitness in the court of Herod the Great (referring to Matthew 2), I very much doubt that it (eyewitness) would be the author of Matthew's. Someone would need access to Herod's palace, I doubt that any of the apostles were there.

That along with contradictions between two gospels and historical inaccuracies of GoL, regarding to events surrounding Jesus' birth, neither of these two gospels are reliable sources.

What evidence do you want? Why would you say there is no evidence when "After Lazarus was raised from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees plotted to kill him, because so many witnesses to the miracle believed in Jesus (John 12:10–11)." Sure, the kicker is the Pharisees trying to kill off a miracle, but there were multiple witnesses to Lazarus' resurrection including the people that buried him.

Also, let me turn this around. Do you believe science can bring Lazarus back from the dead? Suppose, they cryogenically freeze his body soon after death. Is there any evidence that they can? It's stuff of science fiction that is still popular today.

 

[gnostic]

What evidence do you want? Why would you say there is no evidence when "After Lazarus was raised from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees plotted to kill him, because so many witnesses to the miracle believed in Jesus (John 12:10–11)." Sure, the kicker is the Pharisees trying to kill off a miracle, but there were multiple witnesses to Lazarus' resurrection including the people that buried him.

Also, let me turn this around. Do you believe science can bring Lazarus back from the dead? Suppose, they cryogenically freeze his body soon after death. Is there any evidence that they can? It's stuff of science fiction that is still popular today.

And yet such an important miracle, as the raising of Lazarus, didn't get a mention from the 3 other gospels.

Why is that, JB?

Perhaps, because the author who wrote the gospel of John, invented this story.

None of the 3 synoptic gospels say anything about the miracle Jesus performed that day. More than likely, the other authors knew nothing of this miracle, because it didn't happen.

 

[Parsimony]

Thank you for acknowledging the similarities and differences.

So do you acknowledge the differences too?

The general criteria to determine between apes and human fossils are:
For a fossil skull to be identified as human it should have a fairly large brain capacity - over 1,000 cc's, and a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose.

Australopithecus wasn't a human so that's not a problem. Do you have any sources stating 1,000 cc as the minimum cranial capacity requirement? Members of genus "Homo" are considered by taxonomists to be human, and some Homo ergaster had capacities as low as 700-900 cc.

Creationists think that the reputed apeman transitional forms used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of fossil evidence. Lovejoy does this in the first vid I posted in# 2518. For example, he shows the teeth of Ardi (?) and it has been reconstructed to look human. It should have canines as you stated (I checked on my evo website and it too states smaller "canines."

Sometimes things are not preserved well enough for us to know with certainty. I don't know much about Ardipithecus, but if only part of a fossil remains then the gaps are usually filled in by comparing them with similar species. Does this sometimes lead to errors? Yes. However, there are so many fossils of different Australopithecines that we have a very good idea of their physical characteristics.

I think we're disagreeing on the terms because of our views.

Evolution is unaffected by terminology. What we consider personally beneficial does not necessarily have any impact on whether a given trait aids in survival or not.

So that's where you were going. Ok, mutations can create a new function such as the ability to digest nylon polymers. I agree. Are you happy now?

Actually, I am. It's very rare that I hear this from a creationist these days.

So, you changed your mind as an adult (I assume) and not as a child? I think my evo source website started around 2008.

Yes, I had doubts for years before finally deciding about three years ago that I didn't think it was plausible.

I think most people read the Bible and take it literally. What I am getting into now are the people parts. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions that some Christians take from it. What's important to me is what Jesus Christ taught. Ok, that's my bit about religion.

I don't know what the general statistics are, but there are plenty of non-fundamentalist Christians around. Even the pope accepted evolution if I recall correctly.

 

[james bond]

And yet such an important miracle, as the raising of Lazarus, didn't get a mention from the 3 other gospels.

Why is that, JB?

Perhaps, because the author who wrote the gospel of John, invented this story.

None of the 3 synoptic gospels say anything about the miracle Jesus performed that day. More than likely, the other authors knew nothing of this miracle, because it didn't happen.

I'll guess I'll answer my own question then. Science can NOT bring people back to life from the dead. Just as they can NOT create a single cell through abiogenesis. They can not create a single blade of grass.

There are two Lazaruses in the Bible. I gave you the second one who was raised from the dead.

The second Lazarus, also called Lazarus of Bethany, was the brother of Mary and Martha. These three siblings were friends and disciples of Jesus, and they were people Jesus loved (John 11:5). Once, an urgent message came from Bethany to Jesus: His friend Lazarus had become ill, and Mary and Martha wanted Jesus to come and heal him, for he was near death. Jesus then puzzled His disciples and friends. He started by saying that the illness would not lead to death; rather, it would be for God’s glory (John 11:4). Then Jesus stayed two days where He was, instead of going to see Lazarus (verses 5–6). During Jesus’ delay, Lazarus died, but Jesus referred to Lazarus as “asleep” and told the disciples He was going to wake him up (John 11:11). The disciples assumed that Jesus had not visited Lazarus in the first place because He knew Lazarus would heal on his own, so they said, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better,” clearly thinking of physical sleep (John 11:12). Then Jesus told them plainly that Lazarus had died, but they were still going to see him (verse 14). Thomas perfectly expresses the disciples’ confused frustration by saying, “Let us also go, that we may die with him” (verse 16)—the area of Bethany was full of Jesus’ enemies (verse 8).

When they arrived at Lazarus’ home in Bethany, they found Mary and Martha grief-stricken. They had buried their brother four days earlier. Jesus had not come to help. They were confused and frustrated, but their faith in Jesus was intact (John 11:17–36). Everything became clear when Jesus did the unexpected: He went to Lazarus’ tomb and raised him from the dead (verses 43–44).

The entire episode of Lazarus’ sickness, death, and resurrection worked toward giving glory to God and increasing the faith of Jesus’ followers, just as Jesus had said when He heard of Lazarus’ illness. Just before He raised Lazarus, Jesus prayed, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me” (John 11:41–42). Jesus’ prayer was answered: Lazarus came back to life, and “many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him” (verse 45).

When Jesus called to Lazarus, Lazarus emerged from the tomb—not a zombie or half-dead or undead, but fully alive and well. Such is the power of Christ. Scripture never records what Lazarus experienced during his four days in the tomb. We assume that his soul/spirit was in paradise, where the other Lazarus was.

After Lazarus was raised from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees plotted to kill him, because so many witnesses to the miracle believed in Jesus (John 12:10–11). The enemies of Christ couldn’t deny the miracle; the next best thing, in their view, was to destroy the evidence—in this case, the evidence was a living, breathing person. But they couldn’t stop the truth from spreading: “A large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead” (John 12:9).

The other Lazarus is the subject of a story told by Jesus (Luke 16:19–31). Lazarus was very poor, probably homeless, and definitely a beggar (verse 20). He often stayed at the gate of a rich man in hopes of getting scraps from his table. Both men died, and Jesus tells of how Lazarus was taken to “Abraham’s side,” a place of comfort and rest, while the rich man went to “Hades,” a place of conscious torment (verses 22–23). Some Bible scholars believe that Jesus was telling a parable, that is, a fictional story not meant to be a literal account. However, Jesus uses actual names in the story, He does not interpret the story, and neither does He add a moral to the end. He lets the story stand for itself. Because of these details, the story of Lazarus and the rich man could be a true account, relating the actual fates of Lazarus and the unbelieving rich man. Either way, Jesus’ teaching on the reality of heaven and hell is clear. The Lazarus in Jesus’ story does not appear anywhere else in the Bible, and we do not know when in the timeline of history he may have lived, if he was a real person.

So, which one are you referring to?

 

[james bond]

So do you acknowledge the differences too?

Australopithecus wasn't a human so that's not a problem. Do you have any sources stating 1,000 cc as the minimum cranial capacity requirement? Members of genus "Homo" are considered by taxonomists to be human, and some Homo ergaster had capacities as low as 700-900 cc.

Sometimes things are not preserved well enough for us to know with certainty. I don't know much about Ardipithecus, but if only part of a fossil remains then the gaps are usually filled in by comparing them with similar species. Does this sometimes lead to errors? Yes. However, there are so many fossils of different Australopithecines that we have a very good idea of their physical characteristics.

Evolution is unaffected by terminology. What we consider personally beneficial does not necessarily have any impact on whether a given trait aids in survival or not.

Actually, I am. It's very rare that I hear this from a creationist these days.

Yes, I had doubts for years before finally deciding about three years ago that I didn't think it was plausible.

I don't know what the general statistics are, but there are plenty of non-fundamentalist Christians around. Even the pope accepted evolution if I recall correctly.

If you want me to acknowledge the differences, then what is your source of the differences? How did the differences come about? How do you determine what is ape and what is human? Up until this point, there is nothing to show apes "evolving" into humans unlike the beaks of finches and natural selection. So how do we associate man and apes?

Here is where we diverge greatly. Creationists think homo ergaster and homo erectus were the same species. They also think the taxonomic genus homo was created classes to support evolution. It's why I ask the questions above.

Since you avoid of gloss over my Lovejoy video, he says there is more information there with Aridipithecus. Also, the parts of it are recreated to support evolution. The teeth do not have canines when you stated Australophocines had canines in your comparison. My evo website states the same. More evidence of reconstruction of the fossils to fit the ToE?

The source of my criteria p. 308 (1000 ccs would be general or rule-of-thumb) -- https://books.google.com/books?id=b...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false . You need to understand a religious mainstream taxonomist, biologist or other person of science could lose their jobs or funding if they differed from evolution. They're not going to come out and debunk it like Lubenow. Usually, they'll propose a different theory.

The new function is considered a frameshift mutation. The bacteria did not have a food source, so they adapted and used enzymes to eat what they had. This is a micro change of a few hundred amino acids.

I understand. I suppose you lost faith and was swayed by evolution (which isn't really science). In other words, you put your faith in this so-called science. Many evos believe in aliens, science can bring back people from the dead, abiogenesis, multiverses, dark matter and energy and so on when it can be construed as philosophy or pseudoscience. Science we believed in the past has become pseudoscience. It's just the nature of science.

Generally, the difference of Christian people on evolution is based on whether they're conservative or liberal. More liberal ones go for evolution. The Pope is probably more liberal in his thinking. We have the ultra-conservative ones such as Malcolm Bowden, geocentrist, who go way beyond in taking the Bible literally. Your interpretation of it as a child is the correct one. So, do you believe Genesis? One can relate it to the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Parsimony]

If you want me to acknowledge the differences, then what is your source of the differences?

- The proportions of the Australopithecus pelvis and those of the two chimpanzee species can be measured. Australopithecus is wider than it is tall and the chimps are taller than they are wide. If you don't believe me, feel free to digitally make the measurements for yourself: Australopithecus africanus pelvis, bonobo pelvis, common chimpanzee pelvis.
- The evidence for arched feet comes from the "First Family", which was a collection of fossil bones from 17 different individuals of Australopithecus afarensis. At least one of those bones was a curved metatarsal.
- In this image, you can see that the jaw of Australopithecus is less protruding than that of a chimp.
- The Australopithecus africanus fossil STS-52 has all of the teeth on one side of the face, clearly showing small canines. KP 29283 shows this as well.
- The knowledge of knee-locking mechanisms comes initially from the 1973 Hadar knee, but we've found other knees since then (including for Australopithecus sediba fossil MH1 and a knee from the "First Family" fossil collection of A. afarensis).
- The Taung Child shows the human-like foramen magnum.
- I'll get to the toe when I have more time, it's quite late here for me.

How did the differences come about?

You might as well ask how the differences came about between chimps and gorillas: even similar species can have different adaptations to their environment.

How do you determine what is ape and what is human?

Evolutionarily speaking, there is no hard-edge line where you can separate the two. "Ape" and "human" are just convenient terms.

Up until this point, there is nothing to show apes "evolving" into humans unlike the beaks of finches and natural selection. So how do we associate man and apes?

Similarities in mutations in the GULO pseudogenes (which normally manufacture vitamin C) between humans and the great apes evidence common descent, since the likelihood of all of the ape species (along with humans) independently "breaking" their GULO genes and developing similar mutations are small. Also, ERV similarities (the remnants of past retrovirus infections) between humans and chimpanzees are far too large for uncommon descent to be plausible. Humans and chimps have the majority of their over 98,000 ERVs in the same loci (same places in the genome), whereas retroviruses insert their RNA into the genome of infected cells far too randomly to account for independent infection in both chimp and human lineages. Even two separately-infected cells from the same individual have very different loci for ERV insertions, which demonstrates that this can only be accounted for by inheritance of ERV patterns from a common ancestor.

Since you avoid of gloss over my Lovejoy video, he says there is more information there with Aridipithecus.

I've watched that video more than once, actually. Ardipithecus did give us more information than Australopithecus in some ways since the hands and feet are more complete. Not sure what you thinking I'm "glossing over".

Also, the parts of it are recreated to support evolution. The teeth do not have canines when you stated Australophocines had canines in your comparison. My evo website states the same. More evidence of reconstruction of the fossils to fit the ToE?

Ardipithecus is not Australopithecus so I don't know what the lack or presence of teeth in one has to do with the other. We do indeed have Australopithecus jaws where the canine teeth are indeed present, so it's not just a matter of "reconstructing fossils to fit the ToE". The fossil KP 29281 is of a lower jaw of Australopithecus anamensis and has all of its teeth. This one also has at least one canine tooth preserved.

Here is where we diverge greatly. Creationists think homo ergaster and homo erectus were the same species. They also think the taxonomic genus homo was created classes to support evolution. It's why I ask the questions above.

The source of my criteria p. 308 (1000 ccs would be general or rule-of-thumb) -- https://books.google.com/books?id=b...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false .

Interesting that you say that, as there are many members of genus "Homo" that would fail to meet the 1,000 cc criteria you have given. Homo habilis had capacities ranging from 510 to 687 cc, much smaller than those of modern humans and only slightly larger than the largest known chimp brains (500 cc). Many members of Homo erectus would be excluded, because the average brain size for early members was 900 cc (some could go down to 750 cc). Homo ergaster had a similar range to Homo erectus. This includes the subspecies Homo erectus georgicus, which was much smaller at 546 to 600 cc. Homo naledi went from 465 to 560 cc.

You need to understand a religious mainstream taxonomist, biologist or other person of science could lose their jobs or funding if they differed from evolution. They're not going to come out and debunk it like Lubenow. Usually, they'll propose a different theory.

What does being religious have to do with it? If creation science is a science, then there is no need to get religion involved at all.

The new function is considered a frameshift mutation. The bacteria did not have a food source, so they adapted and used enzymes to eat what they had. This is a micro change of a few hundred amino acids.

Yes. I never argued otherwise.

I understand. I suppose you lost faith and was swayed by evolution (which isn't really science). In other words, you put your faith in this so-called science.

What I lost my faith in was a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, not the Bible itself. If I have "faith" in evolution then I also have "faith" in gravity, nuclear fusion, and criminal forensics.

Many evos believe in aliens, science can bring back people from the dead, abiogenesis, multiverses, dark matter and energy and so on when it can be construed as philosophy or pseudoscience.

Careful now, you're treading close to a generalization/equivocation/straw-man fallacy. Accepting evolution does not automatically entail accepting the others. I accept neither the existence or non-existence of aliens, abiogenesis, or multiverses. Could they exist? Yes. Do we know for sure? No. Science bringing the dead back to life might be possible some day but we definitely can't do it now (at least not for anything that is unambiguously dead). For dark matter and dark energy, something is definitely causing strange effects for which we can attribute those names, but we just don't know the cause yet.

Science we believed in the past has become pseudoscience. It's just the nature of science.

Which is not evidence that any given scientific theory will become falsified in the future.

Generally, the difference of Christian people on evolution is based on whether they're conservative or liberal. More liberal ones go for evolution. The Pope is probably more liberal in his thinking. We have the ultra-conservative ones such as Malcolm Bowden, geocentrist, who go way beyond in taking the Bible literally.

That's possible true for many, but not all. Our fellow board member and Christian Serenity7855 accepts evolution but seems to have fairly conservative views (if I recall correctly).

Your interpretation of it as a child is the correct one.

Yes, we are all well aware by now that you believe that.

So, do you believe Genesis? One can relate it to the Big Bang Theory.

Which part? The creation account? If it's true, then it's metaphor. The only similarity between a literal reading of Genesis and the Big Bang theory is that both propose that the universe had a beginning. In the Big Bang context, stars (including the Sun) came a long time (billions of years) before the Earth did. In a literal reading of Genesis, the Sun and stars were created after the Earth.

 

[gnostic]

I'll guess I'll answer my own question then. Science can NOT bring people back to life from the dead. Just as they can NOT create a single cell through abiogenesis. They can not create a single blade of grass.

There are two Lazaruses in the Bible. I gave you the second one who was raised from the dead.

The second Lazarus, also called Lazarus of Bethany, was the brother of Mary and Martha. These three siblings were friends and disciples of Jesus, and they were people Jesus loved (John 11:5). Once, an urgent message came from Bethany to Jesus: His friend Lazarus had become ill, and Mary and Martha wanted Jesus to come and heal him, for he was near death. Jesus then puzzled His disciples and friends. He started by saying that the illness would not lead to death; rather, it would be for God’s glory (John 11:4). Then Jesus stayed two days where He was, instead of going to see Lazarus (verses 5–6). During Jesus’ delay, Lazarus died, but Jesus referred to Lazarus as “asleep” and told the disciples He was going to wake him up (John 11:11). The disciples assumed that Jesus had not visited Lazarus in the first place because He knew Lazarus would heal on his own, so they said, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better,” clearly thinking of physical sleep (John 11:12). Then Jesus told them plainly that Lazarus had died, but they were still going to see him (verse 14). Thomas perfectly expresses the disciples’ confused frustration by saying, “Let us also go, that we may die with him” (verse 16)—the area of Bethany was full of Jesus’ enemies (verse 8).

When they arrived at Lazarus’ home in Bethany, they found Mary and Martha grief-stricken. They had buried their brother four days earlier. Jesus had not come to help. They were confused and frustrated, but their faith in Jesus was intact (John 11:17–36). Everything became clear when Jesus did the unexpected: He went to Lazarus’ tomb and raised him from the dead (verses 43–44).

The entire episode of Lazarus’ sickness, death, and resurrection worked toward giving glory to God and increasing the faith of Jesus’ followers, just as Jesus had said when He heard of Lazarus’ illness. Just before He raised Lazarus, Jesus prayed, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me” (John 11:41–42). Jesus’ prayer was answered: Lazarus came back to life, and “many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him” (verse 45).

When Jesus called to Lazarus, Lazarus emerged from the tomb—not a zombie or half-dead or undead, but fully alive and well. Such is the power of Christ. Scripture never records what Lazarus experienced during his four days in the tomb. We assume that his soul/spirit was in paradise, where the other Lazarus was.

After Lazarus was raised from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees plotted to kill him, because so many witnesses to the miracle believed in Jesus (John 12:10–11). The enemies of Christ couldn’t deny the miracle; the next best thing, in their view, was to destroy the evidence—in this case, the evidence was a living, breathing person. But they couldn’t stop the truth from spreading: “A large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead” (John 12:9).

The other Lazarus is the subject of a story told by Jesus (Luke 16:19–31). Lazarus was very poor, probably homeless, and definitely a beggar (verse 20). He often stayed at the gate of a rich man in hopes of getting scraps from his table. Both men died, and Jesus tells of how Lazarus was taken to “Abraham’s side,” a place of comfort and rest, while the rich man went to “Hades,” a place of conscious torment (verses 22–23). Some Bible scholars believe that Jesus was telling a parable, that is, a fictional story not meant to be a literal account. However, Jesus uses actual names in the story, He does not interpret the story, and neither does He add a moral to the end. He lets the story stand for itself. Because of these details, the story of Lazarus and the rich man could be a true account, relating the actual fates of Lazarus and the unbelieving rich man. Either way, Jesus’ teaching on the reality of heaven and hell is clear. The Lazarus in Jesus’ story does not appear anywhere else in the Bible, and we do not know when in the timeline of history he may have lived, if he was a real person.

So, which one are you referring to?

Oh my good grief.

You went all that trouble of writing this long reply, only to ask me which one I was talking about?

Re-read my post, because it is very obvious who I am talking about, JB, so I am not going to dignify it with an answer...figure out yourself the context of my previous reply.