G
Glark
Guest
Example please.
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
God created all sorts of creatures and some of them had overlapping or similar features. Evolutionists come along and use these common features to fabricate an imaginary story of evolutionary progression.
As ericc pointed out: “My point is despite having similarities of physical or functional characteristics, that in itself is insufficient to prove that A descended from B. At most one can claim that A has some characteristics of B. When the term transitional is used, it creates an illusion that something descended from another organism when in fact nothing has been proven.”
As ericc pointed out: “My point is despite having similarities of physical or functional characteristics, that in itself is insufficient to prove that A descended from B. At most one can claim that A has some characteristics of B. When the term transitional is used, it creates an illusion that something descended from another organism when in fact nothing has been proven.”
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
. . .
The thing you’re stating as a fact is known not to be true, and I’ve stated so several times. There are human remains all over the Americas dating long before Columbus. Some are of indirect African origin, some (i.e. the natives) are clearly of Asian origin, and Kennewick man, 9000 years old, seems very likely to be of European origin.
I’m not sure why you state “If evolution is true, Europeans would have had sea-going boats for maybe 50,000 years or more.” I don’t disagree with that-- I think it’s perfectly possible. But you haven’t provided any rationale for connecting evolution with boat technology.
The thing you’re stating as a fact is known not to be true, and I’ve stated so several times. There are human remains all over the Americas dating long before Columbus. Some are of indirect African origin, some (i.e. the natives) are clearly of Asian origin, and Kennewick man, 9000 years old, seems very likely to be of European origin.
I’m not sure why you state “If evolution is true, Europeans would have had sea-going boats for maybe 50,000 years or more.” I don’t disagree with that-- I think it’s perfectly possible. But you haven’t provided any rationale for connecting evolution with boat technology.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
(1) has been debunked already by the Pied Piper example.
(2) why would I provide evidence for speculation? You said that the only possible interpretation was a literal one, and I gave a couple examples of other possible interpretations. It is known that Hebrews had an interest in numerology.
I do not know how that passage of the Bible was written, or in what sense it was to be taken, and neither do you. The only difference is that you are willing to pretend to knowledge that you cannot possibly have.
If you want to assert that passage can only be called historical-- okay, provide historical evidence. Show us the ark, or the bones of Noah, or genetic evidence, or literally anything.
(2) why would I provide evidence for speculation? You said that the only possible interpretation was a literal one, and I gave a couple examples of other possible interpretations. It is known that Hebrews had an interest in numerology.
I do not know how that passage of the Bible was written, or in what sense it was to be taken, and neither do you. The only difference is that you are willing to pretend to knowledge that you cannot possibly have.
If you want to assert that passage can only be called historical-- okay, provide historical evidence. Show us the ark, or the bones of Noah, or genetic evidence, or literally anything.
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
We ourselves often should put some effort into what we do.
The Ark is like a prefigurement of Moses and Baptism. It further fits with the theme of a few saved from destruction.
Also the Tower of Babble was after this I’m pretty sure.
The Ark is like a prefigurement of Moses and Baptism. It further fits with the theme of a few saved from destruction.
Also the Tower of Babble was after this I’m pretty sure.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I’m pretty sure you aren’t looking at the same observations that evolutionary scientists are looking at. You aren’t putting a new spin on all that data-- you are, so far as I can tell, willfully ignoring most of it, and then attaching straw men to those few pieces you are willing to look at.
G
Glark
Guest
Yet then CCC is very based towards a symbolic interpretation of the “six days”. As far as I know, nowhere in the CCC is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 even mentioned, despite that being the standard interpretation for all of Church history except the last 70 years or so.
E
edwest211
Guest
Exactly right. It is a wrong conclusion driven by ideology.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
So the Catholic Church has it wrong, and you are the possessor of the most correct view on the matter? Good luck with that position!
E
ericc
Guest
I know scientists and FBI know how to trace parentages. True scientists know how to trace lineages through DNA. When backs are against the wall, admission of reality that claims of descendancy for these fossils are actually not real science at all, but extrapolations i.e. not factual evidence.
Whether I am a creationist or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The title of this thread says it clearly, whether Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is true and not whether Creationism is true? Yes, it is true for microevolution. However, it has not been proven true for macroevolution since that is based upon extrapolations and not factual evidences. Is that a correct assessment?
There is a difference between how science works and how some “scientists” works.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Nor me. No need for a literal interpretation.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Nor me. No need for a literal interpretation.
Matthew 20:1–16
No. It is always frustrating for scientists to be told by non-scientists what science is and how to do it. The theory of evolution, like all other scientific theories, is true in the sense that it is a coherent, comprehensive explanation for all the observed phenomena (including fossils with no DNA at all), that currently no contradictory data exists to refute it, and that there are currently no evidence-based challenges providing better, or even nearly-as-good alternative explanations.
Glark has been going on about the discovery of America 500 years ago. This is mere speculation, as there is nobody alive today who saw it. It’s a wild guess, not real science at all, but extrapolations i.e. not factual evidence. Is it true?
T
Techno2000
Guest
…
E
ericc
Guest
When proof is needed for “scientific” assertions isn’t it strange that you are asking for a free pass?
I know scientists and FBI know how to trace parentages. True scientists know how to trace lineages through DNA. If one doesn’t have enough evidence to prove something, just say as it is. If it is a guess, an extrapolation, then be honest about it. If a whole bunch of fossil readers want to have a chummy club and agree with each other it is science when it is not, that’s their privilege. It is their industry trade secret for all I care. But don’t teach something that isn’t.
Whether I am a creationist or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The title of this thread says it clearly, whether Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is true and not whether Creationism is true. Yes, it is true for microevolution. However, it has not been proven true for macroevolution since no evidence has been furnished. And since you state that such evidence need not be required and as long as chummy pals agree with each other , where is the need for science? There is a difference between how science works and how some “scientists” works.
E
ericc
Guest
When proof is needed for “scientific” assertions isn’t it strange that you are asking for a free pass?
I know scientists and FBI know how to trace parentages. Scientists know how to trace lineages through DNA. If one doesn’t have enough evidence to prove something, just say as it is. If it is a guess, an extrapolation, then be honest about it. If a whole bunch of fossil readers want to have a chummy club and agree with each other it is science when it is not, that’s their privilege. It is their industry trade secret for all I care. But don’t teach something that isn’t.
Whether I am a creationist or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The title of this thread says it clearly, whether Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is true and not whether Creationism is true. Yes, it is true for microevolution. However, it has not been proven true for macroevolution since no evidence has been furnished. And since you state that such evidence need not be required and as long as chummy pals agree with each other , where is the need for science? There is a difference between how science works and how some “scientists” works.
You should start a thread on Creationism. You shouldn’t insert that into a Darwinism thread. Folks may think you are not able to defend him and have to divert their attention elsewhere.
E
ericc
Guest
I was reading Archaeopteryx. It says
"Although it seems to be a connection between birds and reptiles it is probably not an ancestor of birds but rather a close relative. "
So I don’t know whether it is sufficient to disrupt the descendancy theory.
You mistook my objective. I am not trying to prove what is not. I am trying to find evidence for what was claimed. Separate issue . If the claim can not be substantiated, then at least we can differentiate what is factual and what is alleged.
My apologies if I may not be able to respond quickly in the next few posts. Got some personal affairs to attend to for the rest of the week.
R
ratio1
Guest
What do you say @discobot fortune ?
D
discobot
Guest
Outlook not so good
E
edwest211
Guest
I agree. 10 characters.
R
RandomAlias
Guest
Anyone looking to renew the battle could take a look at this new thread:
Any young earth creationists out there? Philosophy
- Status