[_ Old Earth _] Just a thought to consider

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes;
While it's O.K. to have a different opinion, it's past the bounds of Christian behavior to call the traditional view a lie.

There’s that twist again, the one your camp is so adamant about doing

Calling someone out on dishonesty is not a "twist."

Malachi never said what you imply here

It's exactly what he did. And he would have gone ballistic if some Christian had called his YE beliefs a lie.

that idea he opposed (called a lie) is no any kind of traditional Christian OR Biblical view.

In fact, St. Augustine wrote that organisms appeared from "seeds" that existed from the initial creation. He also said that creation was instantaneous and all things developed from that. Quite a difference from some modern re-interpretations.

We see what Darwin was referring to in #3…from a hairy quadreped with a tail...fiction with no basis in fact...

As you have seen here, the evidence from anatomy, genetics, fossil record and so on, all points to just that. Many honest and knowledgeable creationists admit it.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
[p. 219]

Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE Creationist Kurt Wise
http://web.archive.org/web/20110725105117/http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/04.pdf

 

[brother Paul]

There’s that twist again, the one your camp is so adamant about doing

Calling someone out on dishonesty is not a "twist."

That in fact is another example. No one said anything about calling someone out on dishonesty (that’s an example of such a twist), what I said was you take the words of a person and make them say or imply something not having been said or implied.

How many times just in this thread have I pointed this out? (a rhetorical question)

We see what Darwin was referring to in #3…from a hairy quadreped with a tail...fiction with no basis in fact...

As you have seen here, the evidence from anatomy, genetics, fossil record and so on, all points to just that. Many honest and knowledgeable creationists admit it.

Zero (now whose being dishonest?)… there is NO evidence humans were once quads, no topical characteristics can truly be discerned from fossilized remains (the “hairy”), and even the earliest Human (which you would say is Erectus) show humans as NOT having tails…

So in fact what we have, if we just take the actual evidence, minus the imposition of the theory to interpret it, negates Darwin’s assumption that was pointed out ny Malachi from The Descent of Man…

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Calling someone out on dishonesty is not a "twist."

That in fact is another example. No one said anything about calling someone out on dishonesty (that’s an example of such a twist), what I said was you take the words of a person and make them say or imply something not having been said or implied.

Perhaps your accusation would have more credibility if it had a actual fact.
How many times just in this thread have I pointed this out? (a rhetorical question)

We see what Darwin was referring to in #3…from a hairy quadreped with a tail...fiction with no basis in fact...

Barbarian observes:
As you have seen here, the evidence from anatomy, genetics, fossil record and so on, all points to just that. Many honest and knowledgeable creationists admit it.

Zero

Well, let's take a look...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates),Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and the primates), and
Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids).
YE Creationist Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

(now whose being dishonest?)

I'd prefer to think you didn't know this.

there is NO evidence humans were once quads,

See above. It's not just transitional forms. It's genetics, which shows us to be most closely related to quadrupedal apes. And anatomical similarities that show chimps and humans to be very much the same in our structures. An the suboptimal parts of modern humans, which give us endless trouble, such as feet, knees, hips, and lower backs, all modified quadrupedal structures, only partially evolved to bipedalism.

Would you like me to provide some details on this evidence?

no topical characteristics can truly be discerned from fossilized remains (the “hairy”)

We are still hairy. You have about the same number of hairs as a chimp, only much finer hair on most of your body.

[quote[ and even the earliest Human (which you would say is Erectus)[/quote]

H. ergaster, probably, but maybe H. habilis.

show humans as NOT having tails…

As Kurt Wise shows, apes, which have no external tails (although all of us have vestigial tails, the coccyx) can be linked by transitional forms to other, tailed primates. The vestigial tails are just a reminder that they weren't lost, only reduced.

So in fact what we have, if we just take the actual evidence, minus the imposition of the theory to interpret it, negates Darwin’s assumption that was pointed out ny Malachi from The Descent of Man…

As you see, that's a false assumption. There's a lot more. Would you like to see more?

 

[turnorburn]

Lots of false assumptions in evolution, its no more than a godless world view bent on establishing a godless world system. When man says that men and apes come from the same beginnings man is contradicting Gods word, in short, calling God a liar, the Lord makes it abundantly clear when he says

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.

What happens next is clear for all to see

II Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

tob

 

[brother Paul]

The Coccyx is not a vestigial tail, there are no human remains (even the most ancient fossils) that have tails (more science fiction unfounded in fact)...Homo Habalis should never have been given the designation Homo (the imposition of the theory to create the illusion), Habalis is simply an ape being labelled with the Latin for "man" (Homo)...to create the association, which not only structurally, but even genomically simply does not exist. Someone decided to monkey around with the truth again...it really drives me australopithicene

Last post on this waste of time and derailed OP

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Lots of false assumptions in evolution, its no more than a godless world view bent on establishing a godless world system.

Hard to understand then, why Darwin attributed the creation of life to God.

When man says that men and apes come from the same beginnings

God says that man came from the earth, like the other animals. But our beginnings were when he breathed life into man and made him a living soul. He still does that for each of us directly. In your pride, you assume your body is you. It isn't. You have a body. You are a soul.

When a man denies this, man is contradicting Gods word, in short, calling God a liar. Instead of denying what He says, set your pride aside and accept it all, accept it fully. And you will be at peace with Him.

 

[Barbarian]

The Coccyx is not a vestigial tail

It's exactly what it is. It has the same blood vessels and nerves as the functional tails of other primates. It's relatively much larger in utero, but then stops growing and remains as a vestigial organ. Occasionally, something goes awry and a full tail develops:

These are typically not harmful, but are often removed surgically for cosmetic reasons.

there are no human remains (even the most ancient fossils) that have tails (more science fiction unfounded in fact)

You've been misled about this. No ape has anything more than a vestigial tail. But as your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise says, the fossil record shows a transition from other primates with tails to apes, who have them only in vestigial form.

Homo Habalis should never have been given the designation Homo (the imposition of the theory to create the illusion), Habalis is simply an ape being labelled with the Latin for "man" (Homo)...to create the association, which not only structurally, but even genomically simply does not exist.

Well, let's take a look...

Just to see how that works, tell us which of these are apes and which are humans. Start with A, and work forward.
And tell us how you decided.

You might be surprised to learn that a fair number of paleontologists agree with you on the classification of H. habilis. Although he did make stone tools, his skeleton is transitional between Australopithecines and H. erectus, which (aside from the skull) is very, very much like modern humans. But the smaller face and dental arcade, as well as the larger cranium were important factors in placing habilis among humans rather than Australopithecines. The major issue with H. habilis as a member of our own genus is that he had somewhat longer arms proportionately than anatomically modern humans, almost proportionately as long as those of Australopithecines.

 

[turnorburn]

Hard to understand then, why Darwin attributed the creation of life to God.



God says that man came from the earth, like the other animals. But our beginnings were when he breathed life into man and made him a living soul. He still does that for each of us directly. In your pride, you assume your body is you. It isn't. You have a body. You are a soul.

When a man denies this, man is contradicting Gods word, in short, calling God a liar. Instead of denying what He says, set your pride aside and accept it all, accept it fully. And you will be at peace with Him.

If you would have put "my son" at the end of that last sentence it would have sounded like a catholic priest..

tob

*edit: You realize of course that if you weren't using men's names all the time, Augustine, Darwin, Kurt Wise, and etc, you'd be left with Gods word, then what?

 

[Barbarian]

If you would have put "my son" at the end of that last sentence it would have sounded like a catholic priest..

You've been watching too many old movies. In real life, I've never had a Catholic priest say that to me. But yes, Christian doctrine is what Catholic priests teach.

edit: You realize of course that if you weren't using men's names all the time, Augustine, Darwin, Kurt Wise, and etc, you'd be left with Gods word, then what?

I'd only have His word, telling me that He used nature to make living things. But then that's all I really need, isn't it?

 

[Terry Thone]

Hard to understand then, why Darwin attributed the creation of life to God.

Does it make a difference to the argument that Darwin attributed the creation to God? I find the info interesting and a little hypocritical.