• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang and Evolution

Dream on, LK.

Does not exist? The theory of relativity does not exist?

Irrelevant? Then what is relevant?

A taxonomist who entirely ignores the mental capacities and spiritual quality of mankind is entitled to be placed in a group of the more foolish apes.

Does any primate subscribe to any religion that you know of? Do you know of any primate that can compose a piece of music? Or give a comprehensible speech of any description?

Does mankind have, in your considered opinion of course, ANY faculties and abilities that are not present in any primate?



Don't you think this is unadulterated nonsense? I do.



There are a large number of physical characteristics which I placed on the board which cannot be explained or accounted for on any theory of evolution by natural selection.

Pre-eminent among them is the binding of the four toes of primates by the metatarsal ligament. The 5 toes of the human are bound by that ligament.

There is no halfway house - it's either 4 or 5 bound. How do you account for that feature?

There are a large number of psychospiritual characteristics which exist, some are mentioned above, which cannot be accounted for by any evolutionary theory either.

The existence of language is impossible to account for by any evolutionary theory. You may try, but failure is guaranteed.

And let me again mention Dr Leakey's find of modern human footprints 3.7mya - far preceding any humanoids, hominins, and such like. That alone shows that these theories of human evolution are well up the ignorance gum tree.

I didn't get your explanation of the origin of those footprints.

On these grounds, and others, I contend that mankind belongs to a separate kingdom.
And your contention is specious, your inability to provide a reasoned and exemplified methodology other than Asyncritus thinks this is so therefore it should be so a fundamental failure of your proposal, your denial or ignoring of the evolutionary explanations you have been presented with instructive, while the demonstrated fact that many of your assertions and claims are clearly misunderstandings or misrepresentations simply underlines the frailty of your arguments.
 
So the "beginning" only goes back as far as the Earth. What happened before that, He doesn't say.



About 4 1/2 billion years old, according to the evidence. God doesn't say exactly how old it is.
Okay so let me get this straight.

The Earth and the Universe are both 4 1/2 billion years old? Okay, now that that's cleared up I want to know why you think your "smarter" than God?
 
Okay so let me get this straight.

The Earth and the Universe are both 4 1/2 billion years old?

Nope. The Universe is a lot older than the Earth.

Okay, now that that's cleared up I want to know why you think your "smarter" than God?

It was His idea, not mine. You'll have to complain to Him.
 
Soul? Some didn't. At some point, God gave a man and a woman an immortal soul, and they were different. Our bodies occur by natural processes, but our souls are given directly by God.



Since even monkeys have rudimentary language, it seems likely that any protohuman did.


ah yeah prove that. i believe that has been debunked as that experiment was a total failure.

where is the soul immortal?

its not, god does say fear him that can destroy both body and soul.

while one is aware what is going on in hell, that isnt life.

its not called second death for no reason.

and can you do the exegesis of what it says here in isiah of the promise of paradise on earth where no animal eats meat or man eats animal?


Isaiah 65


1I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.
2I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
3A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
4Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
5Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
6Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
7Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
8Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.
9And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.
10And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me.
11But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.
12Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
13Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed:
14Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.
15And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
16That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.
17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
24And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. 25The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD

and in genesis as free quotes there that verse(s) on all being vegatarians.hmm sounds like a restoration and theres this romans 8

18For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

the earth is crying out for his return.

why? how has sin of man really affected the animals as they were already being eaten and so forth.

and also why would GOD have to teach man to sin or test him if he already know lying, etc were wrong?
 
Barbarian observes:
Since even monkeys have rudimentary language, it seems likely that any protohuman did.

ah yeah prove that.

Campbell’s monkeys appear to combine the same calls in different ways, using rules of grammar that turn sound into language.

Whether their rudimentary syntax echoes the speech of humanity’s evolutionary ancestors, or represents an emergence of language unrelated to our own, is unclear. Either way, they’re far more sophisticated than we thought.

“This is the first evidence we have in animal communication that they can combine, in a semantic way, different calls to create a new message,†said Alban Lemasson, a primatologist at the University of Rennes in France. “I’m not sure it has strong parallels with humans, in the way that we will find a subject and object and verb. But they have meaningful units combined into other meaningful sequences, with rules imposed on how they’re combined.â€

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/monkey-talk/

i believe that has been debunked as that experiment was a total failure.

Turns out it's not.

Where is the soul immortal?

That is given directly by God.

and can you do the exegesis of what it says here in isiah of the promise of paradise on earth where no animal eats meat or man eats animal?

It seems odd that it says a child will die at 100. When there's paradise, no one will actually die. But it seems to be figurative, not a literal prediction.
 
Nope. The Universe is a lot older than the Earth.



It was His idea, not mine. You'll have to complain to Him.
No, the Bible is clear no other interpretation is needed. The Earth (our planet) and the heaven (anything in space) were both created at the same time, according to God's word. No other interpretation is needed, and in fact a child could figure this out. Unless your asserting that the "beginning" was a span of billions of years.


Also, I want to know why Darwinist's contradict science. Some examples include Cambrian Explosion, embyro, Nebraska Man, Piltdownman, faked moths, and faked homology. I can't believe this is being passed off as "science" when it's all a lie.
 
...Also, I want to know why Darwinist's contradict science. Some examples include Cambrian Explosion, embyro, Nebraska Man, Piltdownman, faked moths, and faked homology. I can't believe this is being passed off as "science" when it's all a lie.
What exactly are you referring to in the examples you give? Which 'Darwinists' are they that you are referring to and what 'science' are they 'contradicting'? What is being passed off as 'science' that is, in fact, 'all a lie'?
 
No, the Bible is clear no other interpretation is needed. The Earth (our planet) and the heaven (anything in space) were both created at the same time, according to God's word.

That's not what it says. It just says they were created in the beginning. Doesn't say what sequence or how long.

No other interpretation is needed

Instead of "interpreting" it, why not just take it as it is, without any additions?

Also, I want to know why Darwinist's contradict science. Some examples include Cambrian Explosion,

How does disruptive selection contradict science?


How do embryos contradict science?

Nebraska Man

How does an article in a London Newspaper contradict science?

Piltdownman

How does an anonymous fraud contradict science?

faked moths, and faked homology. I can't believe this is being passed off as "science" when it's all a lie.

Well, let's take a look at them, and see how it goes. Pick one to start and we'll see. If you can't decide tell us about the moths first. It's one of my favorite creationist scams.
 
That's not what it says. It just says they were created in the beginning. Doesn't say what sequence or how long.
Obviously, the universe is the beginning.

Instead of "interpreting" it, why not just take it as it is, without any additions?
Let's do that. In the beginning which means at the beginning of time.


How does disruptive selection contradict science?
Lack of transition.


How do embryos contradict science?
They're faked in textbooks. Ask any scientist, in fact let's ask Steven Jay Gould. Because in an interview in The New York Times, he ADMITTED the embryos were FAKE and that he'd known it for decades.


How does an article in a London Newspaper contradict science?
Fraud.


How does an anonymous fraud contradict science?
It took an awful long time for a fraud to be considered a fraud.


Well, let's take a look at them, and see how it goes. Pick one to start and we'll see. If you can't decide tell us about the moths first. It's one of my favorite creationist scams.
The moths were faked and scammed. It's also DISGUSTING that this is being used as evidence, in the text books that MY MONEY funds. It's known that the moths were staged and don't rest on tree trunks, instead they fly by night and rest on upper tree branches by day.
Also homologus, huge fail to Darwinism.
 
Umm, not much clarification here. Perhaps you could pick one of these 'fails' and we can look at it in some detail?

Biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty
years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either.
 
Biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty
years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either.

You've confused "homologous" and "analogous." Show us two homologous structures not mediated by the same genes.
 
Barbarian observes:
That's not what it says. It just says they were created in the beginning. Doesn't say what sequence or how long.

Obviously, the universe is the beginning.

Show us where it says "the universe."

Barbarian suggests:
Instead of "interpreting" it, why not just take it as it is, without any additions?

Let's do that.

Start with "the universe." If you take it as it is, that's out.

In the beginning which means at the beginning of time.

But it doesn't say that, does it? "The beginning" seems to refer to the Earth, not the universe. And much later, Jesus uses "the beginning" to mean something even later, the first humans.

Barbarian asks:
How does disruptive selection contradict science?

Lack of transition.

That's a testable claim. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional between the groups.

Barbarian asks:
How do embryos contradict science?

They're faked in textbooks.

Nope. In fact, modern textbooks use photographs. They make the same point the drawings did. Haeckel's drawings where altered to make it appear that not only homology but recapitulation was true. But no textbook in the last half-century has used them that way. Haeckel's drawings and photographs both show homology to be true.

Ask any scientist, in fact let's ask Steven Jay Gould. Because in an interview in The New York Times, he ADMITTED the embryos were FAKE and that he'd known it for decades.

It probably outrages creationists, that textbook publishers (who aren't scientists) just went over to photographs, which show the same data.

Barbarian asks:
How does an article in a London Newspaper contradict science?


Except it wasn't. The newspaper (not scientists) took a report of a primate tooth, and blew it into an imaginary animal, with a family. No scientist did that, and when a mammalogist took a look at it, he quickly identified it as a javelina tooth, oddly worn to look like that of a primate.

Barbarian observes:
How does an anonymous fraud contradict science?

It took an awful long time for a fraud to be considered a fraud.

Whoever it was, was pretty good at it. We don't know if it was a creationist who did it or not, but we do know an evolutionist debunked it.

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's take a look at them, and see how it goes. Pick one to start and we'll see. If you can't decide tell us about the moths first. It's one of my favorite creationist scams.

The moths were faked and scammed. It's also DISGUSTING that this is being used as evidence, in the text books that MY MONEY funds. It's known that the moths were staged and don't rest on tree trunks, instead they fly by night and rest on upper tree branches by day.

You've been had on that one, I'm afraid. In fact, when Jonathan Wells made the accusation, he cited a reference that specifically states that the moths rest on tree trunks. Would you like to see the relevant literature?

Here's a hint: if you want to learn about capitalism, don't ask Hugo Chavez to explain it to you.
 
Barbarian observes:
That's not what it says. It just says they were created in the beginning. Doesn't say what sequence or how long.
So now your putting words in God's mouth? He's clear about his word, in the beginning he made everything, you may take that or reject that.


Show us where it says "the universe."
"God created the HEAVENS and the Earth" Heavens means anything in space.
Barbarian suggests:
Instead of "interpreting" it, why not just take it as it is, without any additions?
That's what I'm doing.


Start with "the universe." If you take it as it is, that's out.



But it doesn't say that, does it? "The beginning" seems to refer to the Earth, not the universe. And much later, Jesus uses "the beginning" to mean something even later, the first humans.
I don't know what Bible your reading from, but it says "The heavens AND the Earth" not "The Earth".
Barbarian asks:
How does disruptive selection contradict science?



That's a testable claim. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional between the groups.
Instead of common ancestry here, we find lot's of groups fully developed a long time ago.
Barbarian asks:
How do embryos contradict science?
They're faked.


Nope. In fact, modern textbooks use photographs. They make the same point the drawings did. Haeckel's drawings where altered to make it appear that not only homology but recapitulation was true. But no textbook in the last half-century has used them that way. Haeckel's drawings and photographs both show homology to be true.
Not according to scientists out there. I mean give me ONE good reason, why I should trust the information you give me? Heck your the one who told me that natural selection and mutations don't interlink. My teacher laughed and asked me if you were also "trying to sell me an invisibility potion.".


It probably outrages creationists, that textbook publishers (who aren't scientists) just went over to photographs, which show the same data.
See above statement.
Barbarian asks:
How does an article in a London Newspaper contradict science?



Except it wasn't. The newspaper (not scientists) took a report of a primate tooth, and blew it into an imaginary animal, with a family. No scientist did that, and when a mammalogist took a look at it, he quickly identified it as a javelina tooth, oddly worn to look like that of a primate.
Nebraksa Man was a pigs tooth made to look like a mans tooth. And yet scientists made an entire model of a human off of this tooth. :shame
Barbarian observes:
How does an anonymous fraud contradict science?
Read your question again, I think you know the answer.


Whoever it was, was pretty good at it. We don't know if it was a creationist who did it or not, but we do know an evolutionist debunked it.
After it was being passed off as "science".
Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's take a look at them, and see how it goes. Pick one to start and we'll see. If you can't decide tell us about the moths first. It's one of my favorite creationist scams.



You've been had on that one, I'm afraid. In fact, when Jonathan Wells made the accusation, he cited a reference that specifically states that the moths rest on tree trunks. Would you like to see the relevant literature?
Yes actually, because this is the guy that I found the moth information on. Quite honestly, I trust him more than you simply because Darwinist's don't ever credit Christianity.
Here's a hint: if you want to learn about capitalism, don't ask Hugo Chavez to explain it to you.
....
 
Barbarian observes:
That's not what it says. It just says they were created in the beginning. Doesn't say what sequence or how long.

So now your putting words in God's mouth?

No, I'm suggesting that you not put words in God's mouth. Don't add words like "universe" if God didn't see fit to put them there.

He's clear about his word, in the beginning he made everything, you may take that or reject that.

Depends on the beginning. In Genesis, He doesn't talk about the origin of the universe. Later, Jesus uses "beginning" to mean the start of the human race. Entirely different things.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us where it says "the universe."

"God created the HEAVENS and the Earth" Heavens means anything in space.

No "universe?" How about that? In fact, at the time, "heavens" meant what you could see from the Earth.

Barbarian suggests:
Instead of "interpreting" it, why not just take it as it is, without any additions?

That's what I'm doing.

Adding words is not a good idea.

But it doesn't say that, does it? "The beginning" seems to refer to the Earth, not the universe. And much later, Jesus uses "the beginning" to mean something even later, the first humans.

Barbarian asks:
How does disruptive selection contradict science?

Lack of transitions

Barbarian observes:
That's a testable claim. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional between the groups.

(declines to do so)

So you already know there are transitions. But just so everyone can see, name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll show you.

Barbarian asks:
How do embryos contradict science?

They're faked.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. In fact, modern textbooks use photographs. They make the same point the drawings did. Haeckel's drawings where altered to make it appear that not only homology but recapitulation was true. But no textbook in the last half-century has used them that way. Haeckel's drawings and photographs both show homology to be true.

Not according to scientists out there.

Yep. Even Gould, the guy you cited.

I mean give me ONE good reason, why I should trust the information you give me?

Go check the textbooks for yourself. They've used photos for a long time.

Heck your the one who told me that natural selection and mutations don't interlink.

Nope. You made that up. "Interlink" is not a word I would ever use for that.

My teacher laughed and asked me if you were also "trying to sell me an invisibility potion.".

If you told him I said that, I wouldn't be surprised.

Barbarian chuckles:
It probably outrages creationists, that textbook publishers (who aren't scientists) just went over to photographs, which show the same data.

See above statement.

Show me a recent textbook that uses Haeckel's drawings for anything but a cautionary tale.

Barbarian asks:
How does an article in a London Newspaper contradict science?


Barbarian chuckles:
Except it wasn't. The newspaper (not scientists) took a report of a primate tooth, and blew it into an imaginary animal, with a family. No scientist did that, and when a mammalogist took a look at it, he quickly identified it as a javelina tooth, oddly worn to look like that of a primate.

Nebraksa Man was a pigs tooth made to look like a mans tooth.

Nope. It was worn in an odd way. Which fooled a dinosaur specialist, but not a mammologist.

And yet scientists made an entire model of a human off of this tooth.

Show us that.

Barbarian observes:
How does an anonymous fraud contradict science?

Read your question again, I think you know the answer.

No one else can explain it either.

Barbarian observes:
Whoever it was, was pretty good at it. We don't know if it was a creationist who did it or not, but we do know an evolutionist debunked it.

After it was being passed off as "science".

Well, there was always a problem with it. You see, evolutionary theory depended on the large skull coming after an upright posture; Piltdown didn't fit, which was why it was pushed off into the corner in books on evolution.

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's take a look at them, and see how it goes. Pick one to start and we'll see. If you can't decide tell us about the moths first. It's one of my favorite creationist scams.

Barbarian observes:
You've been had on that one, I'm afraid. In fact, when Jonathan Wells made the accusation, he cited a reference that specifically states that the moths rest on tree trunks. Would you like to see the relevant literature?

Yes actually, because this is the guy that I found the moth information on.

Wells cited the work of Majerus, indeed the very work in which this appears:
During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001–2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs.

Majerus discusses the issue here:
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf

In short, Wells completely misrepresented what Majerus had written. And he has no excuse, since he cites the very article that gives lie to his claims.

Quite honestly, I trust him more than you simply because Darwinist's don't ever credit Christianity.

I recognize that Darwin's four points remain tested and valid, and I know Christianity is the hope of mankind.

Barbarian, regarding how Eric got taken down the garden path:
Here's a hint: if you want to learn about capitalism, don't ask Hugo Chavez to explain it to you.
 
BTW, we still have this issue open. Can you show us your evidence?

Biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty
years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either.

Barbarian suggests:
You've confused "homologous" and "analogous." Show us two homologous structures not mediated by the same genes.
 
Not dropping out of this debate, but I wont reply until late tonight. I'm tired from finals, have church to go to, and dinner.
 
The common genetic basis and developmental pathways for vertebrate limb development:

The role of Hox genes during vertebrate limb development.
Zakany J, Duboule D.
National Research Centre Frontiers in Genetics, Department of Zoology and Animal Biology, University of Geneva, Sciences III, Quai Ernest Ansermet 30, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland. jozsef.zakany@zoo.unige.ch
Abstract
The potential role of Hox genes during vertebrate limb development was brought into focus by gene expression analyses in mice (P Dolle, JC Izpisua-Belmonte, H Falkenstein, A Renucci, D Duboule, Nature 1989, 342:767-772), at a time when limb growth and patterning were thought to depend upon two distinct and rather independent systems of coordinates; one for the anterior-to-posterior axis and the other for the proximal-to-distal axis (see D Duboule, P Dolle, EMBO J 1989, 8:1497-1505). Over the past years, the function and regulation of these genes have been addressed using both gain-of-function and loss-of-function approaches in chick and mice. The use of multiple mutations either in cis-configuration in trans-configuration or in cis/trans configurations, has confirmed that Hox genes are essential for proper limb development, where they participate in both the growth and organization of the structures. Even though their molecular mechanisms of action remain somewhat elusive, the results of these extensive genetic analyses confirm that, during the development of the limbs, the various axes cannot be considered in isolation from each other and that a more holistic view of limb development should prevail over a simple cartesian, chess grid-like approach of these complex structures. With this in mind, the functional input of Hox genes during limb growth and development can now be re-assessed.


Jon Safarti has had to eat a lot of crow over his argument that they don't all work the same way. The same genes and developmental pathways work for all of them.
 
Barbarian observes:
That's not what it says. It just says they were created in the beginning. Doesn't say what sequence or how long.



No, I'm suggesting that you not put words in God's mouth. Don't add words like "universe" if God didn't see fit to put them there.
1. The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural. Definition of Heaven from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heaven


Depends on the beginning. In Genesis, He doesn't talk about the origin of the universe. Later, Jesus uses "beginning" to mean the start of the human race. Entirely different things.
Quote scripture.
Barbarian suggests:
Show us where it says "the universe."



No "universe?" How about that? In fact, at the time, "heavens" meant what you could see from the Earth.
Exactly, you can see the universe from Earth.
Barbarian suggests:
Instead of "interpreting" it, why not just take it as it is, without any additions?
That's what I'm doing, according to the dictionary I'm right. I suggest staying with the field you "specialize" in, instead of trying to correct the scholars.


Adding words is not a good idea.

But it doesn't say that, does it? "The beginning" seems to refer to the Earth, not the universe. And much later, Jesus uses "the beginning" to mean something even later, the first humans.
Quote scripture.
Barbarian asks:
How does disruptive selection contradict science?



Barbarian observes:
That's a testable claim. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional between the groups.

(declines to do so)
Apes and humans, are not connected together. Don't care what any scientists says, we're about as similar as a Model T Ford with a space ship.
So you already know there are transitions. But just so everyone can see, name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll show you.
Apes and humans.
Barbarian asks:
How do embryos contradict science?



Barbarian observes:
Nope. In fact, modern textbooks use photographs. They make the same point the drawings did. Haeckel's drawings where altered to make it appear that not only homology but recapitulation was true. But no textbook in the last half-century has used them that way. Haeckel's drawings and photographs both show homology to be true.
Haeckel's drawings do not show them to be true. They're altered drawings that do not belong in textbooks. In fact my textbook uses them.


Yep. Even Gould, the guy you cited.



Go check the textbooks for yourself. They've used photos for a long time.
Incorrect photos.


Nope. You made that up. "Interlink" is not a word I would ever use for that.
I did not make that up. You said that mutations and natural selection are not related. Interlink is a word for relation.


If you told him I said that, I wouldn't be surprised.
You made an assertion, I checked with my teachers and they said it was false.
Barbarian chuckles:
It probably outrages creationists, that textbook publishers (who aren't scientists) just went over to photographs, which show the same data.



Show me a recent textbook that uses Haeckel's drawings for anything but a cautionary tale.
Can't take a picture of my textbook on winter break.
Barbarian asks:
How does an article in a London Newspaper contradict science?



Barbarian chuckles:
Except it wasn't. The newspaper (not scientists) took a report of a primate tooth, and blew it into an imaginary animal, with a family. No scientist did that, and when a mammalogist took a look at it, he quickly identified it as a javelina tooth, oddly worn to look like that of a primate.
You got me on this one.


Nope. It was worn in an odd way. Which fooled a dinosaur specialist, but not a mammologist.



Show us that.
Tell me what to show.
Barbarian observes:
How does an anonymous fraud contradict science?
Do I need to elaborate on this?




Barbarian observes:
Whoever it was, was pretty good at it. We don't know if it was a creationist who did it or not, but we do know an evolutionist debunked it.



Well, there was always a problem with it. You see, evolutionary theory depended on the large skull coming after an upright posture; Piltdown didn't fit, which was why it was pushed off into the corner in books on evolution.

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's take a look at them, and see how it goes. Pick one to start and we'll see. If you can't decide tell us about the moths first. It's one of my favorite creationist scams.

Barbarian observes:
You've been had on that one, I'm afraid. In fact, when Jonathan Wells made the accusation, he cited a reference that specifically states that the moths rest on tree trunks. Would you like to see the relevant literature?



Wells cited the work of Majerus, indeed the very work in which this appears:
During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001–2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs.

Majerus discusses the issue here:
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf

In short, Wells completely misrepresented what Majerus had written. And he has no excuse, since he cites the very article that gives lie to his claims.
I'm not convinced, the person who recommended Wells article to me is pretty smart.


I recognize that Darwin's four points remain tested and valid, and I know Christianity is the hope of mankind.
Darwin made his theory so he could go against God. You can't make me believe that something of God has mislead so many people into evil. Tip: If it's disturbing, evil, etc it's not of God.
Barbarian, regarding how Eric got taken down the garden path:
Here's a hint: if you want to learn about capitalism, don't ask Hugo Chavez to explain it to you.
,,,,,
 
Barbairan observes:
No, I'm suggesting that you not put words in God's mouth. Don't add words like "universe" if God didn't see fit to put them there.

1. The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural. Definition of Heaven from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heaven

Exactly. It's not the universe, it's only what can be seen from the Earth.

Barbarian suggests:
Instead of "interpreting" it, why not just take it as it is, without any additions?

That's what I'm doing,

No, you're adding to it by conflating what we can see from the Earth, with the universe.

(Denial of transitional forms)

Barbarian observes:
That's a testable claim. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional between the groups.

(declines to do so)

Apes and humans, are not connected together.

There are hundreds of transitionals between apes and humans. In fact, they are so finely transitional that even creationists can't agree which are humans and which are apes. Would you like to take the test and see?

Don't care what any scientists says, we're about as similar as a Model T Ford with a space ship.

So you already know there are transitions. But just so everyone can see, name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll show you.

Apes and humans.

Take a look here:
8516664.jpg
,
BH011.jpg


bh-030-md.jpg

E4390055-Cro-Magnon_human_skull-SPL.jpg


Which are humans, and which are apes, and how did you decide? If you can't tell, then you've got to admit transitionals.

Barbarian asks:
How do embryos contradict science?

Barbarian observes:
Nope. In fact, modern textbooks use photographs. They make the same point the drawings did. Haeckel's drawings where altered to make it appear that not only homology but recapitulation was true. But no textbook in the last half-century has used them that way. Haeckel's drawings and photographs both show homology to be true.
Haeckel's drawings do not show them to be true. They're altered drawings that do not belong in textbooks. In fact my textbook uses them.

Yep. Even Gould, the guy you cited.

Go check the textbooks for yourself. They've used photos for a long time.

Incorrect photos.

Nope. You made that up. "Interlink" is not a word I would ever use for that.
I did not make that up. You said that mutations and natural selection are not related. Interlink is a word for relation.

Barbarian chuckles:
It probably outrages creationists, that textbook publishers (who aren't scientists) just went over to photographs, which show the same data.

Barbarian chuckles:
Except it wasn't. The newspaper (not scientists) took a report of a primate tooth, and blew it into an imaginary animal, with a family. No scientist did that, and when a mammalogist took a look at it, he quickly identified it as a javelina tooth, oddly worn to look like that of a primate.
You got me on this one.

Nope. It was worn in an odd way. Which fooled a dinosaur specialist, but not a mammologist.

Barbarian observes:
Whoever it was, was pretty good at it. We don't know if it was a creationist who did it or not, but we do know an evolutionist debunked it.

Well, there was always a problem with it. You see, evolutionary theory depended on the large skull coming after an upright posture; Piltdown didn't fit, which was why it was pushed off into the corner in books on evolution.

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's take a look at them, and see how it goes. Pick one to start and we'll see. If you can't decide tell us about the moths first. It's one of my favorite creationist scams.

Barbarian observes:
You've been had on that one, I'm afraid. In fact, when Jonathan Wells made the accusation, he cited a reference that specifically states that the moths rest on tree trunks. Would you like to see the relevant literature?

Wells cited the work of Majerus, indeed the very work in which this appears:
During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001–2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs.

Majerus discusses the issue here:
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/pe...talk220807.pdf

In short, Wells completely misrepresented what Majerus had written. And he has no excuse, since he cites the very article that gives lie to his claims.

I'm not convinced, the person who recommended Wells article to me is pretty smart.

Not smart enough to read Majerus and find out for himself.

I recognize that Darwin's four points remain tested and valid, and I know Christianity is the hope of mankind.

Darwin made his theory so he could go against God.

You've been had on that, too:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1872
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top