[_ Old Earth _] Considerations about science

[brother Paul]

They did if they are a variety of mankind but not if a variety of ape-kind! I think Barbarian is saying the same thing in different words.

 

[Barbarian]

Humans are a variety of apekind. We're just a particular group.

Humans and chimpanzees are a separate group, more closely related to each other than either is to other great apes like gorillas or orangutans. Genetically, our closest relative is the bonobo chimpanzee. Gorillas are a little more distantly-related to both of our species.

Neandertals are much more closely related to us than chimps, because we have a much more recent common ancestor with Neandertals.

 

[turnorburn]

Humans are a variety of apekind. We're just a particular group.

Humans and chimpanzees are a separate group, more closely related to each other than either is to other great apes like gorillas or orangutans. Genetically, our closest relative is the bonobo chimpanzee. Gorillas are a little more distantly-related to both of our species.

Neandertals are much more closely related to us than chimps, because we have a much more recent common ancestor with Neandertals.

No you see your doing it again, mankind is not beast kind monkeys apes and chimpanzees are beasts not men.. We are created in Gods image, but you must know that by now its been posted numerous times

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

No you see your doing it again, mankind is not beast kind monkeys apes and chimpanzees are beasts not men..

Denial won't do you any good. You need some facts. And as you see, the facts show that we are apes; we form a group with chimpanzees and bonobos with the other great apes as the outgroup.

We are created in Gods image,

The image is in our minds and souls, not in our bodies. God doesn't have fingers or a nose. Jesus says He's a spirit, and Jesus says spirits have no body. You're telling us that Jesus is wrong.

but you must know that by now its been posted numerous times

 

[turnorburn]

Denial won't do you any good. You need some facts. And as you see, the facts show that we are apes; we form a group with chimpanzees and bonobos with the other great apes as the outgroup.



The image is in our minds and souls, not in our bodies. God doesn't have fingers or a nose. Jesus says He's a spirit, and Jesus says spirits have no body. You're telling us that Jesus is wrong.

but you must know that by now its been posted numerous times

Whose the one in denial, Gods word makes it abundantly clear..

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Jesus said he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Jesus is the express image of his person..

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Please get your nose out of those science magazines.. and please don't teach these young children that monkey's are our relatives..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Humans are a variety of apekind. We're just a particular group.

Humans and chimpanzees are a separate group, more closely related to each other than either is to other great apes like gorillas or orangutans. Genetically, our closest relative is the bonobo chimpanzee. Gorillas are a little more distantly-related to both of our species.

Neandertals are much more closely related to us than chimps, because we have a much more recent common ancestor with Neandertals.

Oh no! Not this monkey business again. I really drives me Australopithicene....

Next you'll be telling us our original ancestors were sea creatures...something fishy about that....

Most species appearing suddenly in the geo column (fully formed as Gould says) does not support the kind of gradualism that indicates common descent.

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Oh no! Not this monkey business again. I really drives me Australopithicene....

Reality is often frustrating, but it has the virtue of being true. Learn to adjust to it.

Next you'll be telling us our original ancestors were sea creatures...

Oddly enough, a creationist first found evidence for that. Linnaeus produced a family tree showing that all organisms have a common ancestor. And those nested hierarchies are only found in cases of common descent. Linnaeus tried to do the same thing with minerals and couldn't make it work. Later on, genetics showed his family tree to be real.

Most species appearing suddenly in the geo column (fully formed as Gould says)

Which supports his theory that most speciation is allopatric, by small populations in out-of-the-way places. Gould however, points out that there are documented cases of gradual speciation. Which is why most creationists now admit the fact of speciation. It's too well-documented to deny.

does not support the kind of gradualism that indicates common descent.

No, that's wrong. And scientists knew that from the star. Darwin and Huxley, for example, differed on pacing, and Huxley showed that rapid evolution was possible. "Rapidly" in terms of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, rather than millions. Would you like me to show you some examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record?

 

[Barbarian]

Whose the one in denial, Gods word makes it abundantly clear..

Of course. Proof-texting from verses that have no relevance at all is a clear sign:

I Corinthians 15

:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Which is why tissues from one can't be grafted to another. Genetic changes that produce changes in shape, and function, also produce changes in "flesh." A prediction of evolutionary theory.

Jesus said he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.

After He become man. You just made my point for me.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Jesus says that God is a spirit. And He says that a spirit has no body. Why won't you accept what He's saying to you?

Please get your nose out of those fundamentalist tracts.. and please don't teach these young children that your new doctrine is an essential Christian belief. It causes many people to lose their faith.

 

[brother Paul]

Pardon the sarcastic attempt at humor. To remain consistent with the OP, perhaps you or milk would consider taking one Darwinian point at a time in a series of different threads.

Gould however, points out that there are documented cases of gradual speciation. Which is why most creationists now admit the fact of speciation. It's too well-documented to deny.

To be honest I have only seen YECs deny that changes occur within a given species (causing variety)...the problem has consistently been one kind of creature becoming or producing an entirely different kind *like fish BECOMING amphibians or invertebrate becoming vertebrate. No one denies that all the dogs we now have were not a possibility from within the genomes of the earlier varieties, but they were never cats. Dr. Steven Stanley, in Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, declared that “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of Phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition...” and he is still correct. This has still never been demonstrated or observed. The evidence falsifies the hypothesis.

In the Proceedings for the National Academy of Science (PNAS) in 2007, the research found indicates that "there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy" and "the only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree." See Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life Hypothesis” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104(7):2043-2049, January 29, 2007.

Wake, Wake, and Specht, in "Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution," Science, Vol. 331:1032-1035 (February 25, 2011), show how at various levels extremely high patterns of biological similarity appear independently. What mechanism could generate such highly complex sequences of genetic code independent of one another in so many cases? Apparently because one thing appearing earlier than another in history does not equal the second having come forth from the first. Otherwise at one point our ancient ancestor was a banana!!!

Paul

 

[brother Paul]

Would you like me to show you some examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record?[/QUOTE]

Not if all you are going to show me are the run of the mill cases of demonstrating the development of variety within a given phyla.

 

[brother Paul]

I know it is not ap-peeling, but where the Chimpanze Sequencing Consortium has demonstrated that in reality we only share only about a 30% actual genomic match with Chimps and we know from elsewhere that we share about 50% in common with bananas, isn't it more likely we are evolved bananas? Hmmm? Just kidding Barb...

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian offers to show some examples of transitionals in fossil record)

Not if all you are going to show me are the run of the mill cases of demonstrating the development of variety within a given phyla.

Phylum. The singular of "phyla" is "phylum." But then you're telling me that even if I can show you the evolution of humans all the way from fish, you wouldn't accept the evidence.

Given that, you surely wouldn't think the evolution of humans from Australopithecines to qualify as "evolution."

Rock and a hard place, um?

 

[brother Paul]

Even if I can show you the evolution of humans all the way from fish, you wouldn't accept the evidence.

I have seen the alleged "evidence" and it is obvious that fish came first. That does not demonstrate that one became the other. Opinion? Conjecture? Interpretation of the data to fit the theory? Okay….

Given that, you surely wouldn't think the evolution of humans from Australopithecines to qualify as "evolution."

I believe in evolution just not the neo-Darwinian myth…and no I absolutely do not believe humans “evolved” from Australopithicene.

 

[turnorburn]

Of course. Proof-texting from verses that have no relevance at all is a clear sign:


Which is why tissues from one can't be grafted to another. Genetic changes that produce changes in shape, and function, also produce changes in "flesh." A prediction of evolutionary theory.



After He become man. You just made my point for me.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Jesus says that God is a spirit. And He says that a spirit has no body. Why won't you accept what He's saying to you?

Please get your nose out of those fundamentalist tracts.. and please don't teach these young children that your new doctrine is an essential Christian belief. It causes many people to lose their faith.

Your saying Gods word has no relevance, science has become, well not become its been used by unbelievers for thousands of years, its called science falsely so called.. evolution is a prime example. what was once a theory has become dogma in a godless world, no surprise there..

I Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian offers to show some examples of transitionals in fossil record)

Not if all you are going to show me are the run of the mill cases of demonstrating the development of variety within a given phyla.

Phylum. The singular of "phyla" is "phylum." But then you're telling me that even if I can show you the evolution of humans all the way from fish, you wouldn't accept the evidence.

[quote[I have seen the alleged "evidence" and it is obvious that fish came first. That does not demonstrate that one became the other. [/quote]

Anatomical, genetic, and fossil transitional data shows this to be true. Pick one of those you want to start with, and we'll look at it in detail. Or show me what evidence from that, you feel is not compelling.

Opinion? Conjecture? Interpretation of the data to fit the theory?

Nope. I'm not very open to the postmodern idea that reality is whatever we make it to be. If that's all you have, I'm not interested. The facts show that the world is knowable, and we can learn about it from investigation

What do you have of substance? Pick one of those, or tell me about the evidence you think scientists claim to be persuasive, that you think is wrong.


Given that, you surely wouldn't think the evolution of humans from Australopithecines to qualify as "evolution."

I believe in evolution just not the neo-Darwinian myth…and no I absolutely do not believe humans “evolved” from Australopithicene.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said..

"even if I can show you the evolution of humans all the way from fish, you wouldn't accept the evidence"

and neither will any bible believing Christian, we are created in Gods image. Jesus isn't the fish god that was dagon "the fish god"..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

You're still thinking of God as some sort of humanoid copy of us. As Jesus told you, God is a spirit. And He said that spirits have no body. Bible believing Christians have no problem realizing that humans evolved from other living things, precisely because they accept the Bible.

You should, too.

 

[turnorburn]

i can show you but you wouldn't accept the evidence..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

So far, your evidence has been found wanting. What else do you have?