[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[God Is My Judge]

Whatever, man. Are humans apes? Well, humans are in their own genus: homo. However, we're related to apes, since we share a common ancestor. Are birds dinosaurs? They're in their own group, but share a distinct common ancestor and are thus related.
What common ancestor?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Whatever, man. Are humans apes? Well, humans are in their own genus: homo. However, we're related to apes, since we share a common ancestor. Are birds dinosaurs? They're in their own group, but share a distinct common ancestor and are thus related.
What common ancestor?

Apes-humans : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31533109/

...This body plan and environment were retained in the early hominin, Ardipithecus ramidus, but with a more robust postcranial skeleton and incipient bipedalism. Based on shared character states in fossil apes, living apes and early hominins, 27 characters [i.e., characteristics] are identified as probable attributes of the last common ancestor (LCA) of apes and humans. The likely environment of the LCA was tropical deciduous woodland with some evidence of more open habitats, and this remained unchanged in the transition from apes to early hominins.

Dinosaurs-birds: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-origin-of-birds/ https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/how-dinosaurs-evolved-into-birds.html

The ancestor of all living birds lived sometime in the Late Cretaceous, and in the 65 million years since the extinction of the rest of the dinosaurs, this ancestral lineage diversified into the major groups of birds alive today.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Once again, birds are dinosaurs ONLY in the same way that humans are apes.

In no way are any birds dinosaurs.
In no way are any dinosaurs birds.
In no way are humans apes.
In no way are apes humans.

Apes are non-humans, and humans are non-apes,

True, and true, period.

but there is a very distinct relationship, which can be clearly seen in many of the common features, DNA, and in the fossil record.

No non-humans are ancestors of any humans. No non-apes are ancestors of any apes. So, humans are not related to apes.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Are humans apes?

IOW, "Are [non-apes] apes?"
No.
Duh.

Seriously, do you not even spend so much as 5 seconds thinking about what you're going to say before you say it?

Are birds dinosaurs?

IOW, "Are [non-dinosaurs] dinosaurs?"
No. Duh.

I take it you don't.

 

[T. E. Smith]

IOW, "Are [non-apes] apes?"
No.
Duh.

Seriously, do you not even spend so much as 5 seconds thinking about what you're going to say before you say it?

IOW, "Are [non-dinosaurs] dinosaurs?"
No. Duh.

I take it you don't.

It was rhetorical questions, which I answered by saying basically that they are not the same, but that they are related.

In no way are any birds dinosaurs.
In no way are any dinosaurs birds.
In no way are humans apes.
In no way are apes humans.

True, and true, period.

No non-humans are ancestors of any humans. No non-apes are ancestors of any apes. So, humans are not related to apes.

I'll need more than just denial and "period". Because what you're saying is false. Non-humans are indeed ancestors of humans, and non-apes* are indeed ancestors of apes.

*Obviously not a reference to humans.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Apes-humans : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31533109/

Dinosaurs-birds: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-origin-of-birds/ https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/how-dinosaurs-evolved-into-birds.html

I love how they just mix it up, change dates , after first extinction followed by the last and final extinction. Apes- humans, yet no more apes are evolving into humans----------BIG GAP evolution stopped! But it may start up again with the mRNA shots. People will be giving birth to hybrids- Human 2.0 and science will say evolution has kicked in again. Like WOW.... the extraterrestrials came back and have decided to tweak everything again....sarcasm. Yeah all opinion since the basis of the rest of evolutionary theory has been shown to be a bunch of bunk, the rest is just doubling down on a foundation of sand.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Apes- humans, yet no more apes are evolving into humans----------BIG GAP evolution stopped!

No, you misunderstand; apes and humans have a common ancestor. To say we evolved from apes is like saying my little sister evolved from me. No, obviously not, my little sister and I share a common ancestor (so to speak) and thus are related.

In other words, apes are our brothers, not our parents.

 

[God Is My Judge]

No, you misunderstand; apes and humans have a common ancestor. To say we evolved from apes is like saying my little sister evolved from me. No, obviously not, my little sister and I share a common ancestor (so to speak) and thus are related.

In other words, apes are our brothers, not our parents.

Yeah because you are both human. And still no filling the gaps. What is the common ancestor?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It was rhetorical questions, which I answered by saying basically that they are not the same, but that they are related.

That you cannot answer each of your yes/no questions—"Are [non-apes] apes?" and "Are [non-dinosaurs] dinosaurs?"—by saying, simply, "No," demonstrates your shameless, desperate commitment to trying (and to failing miserably) to prop up your Darwinismspeak.

I'll need more than just denial and "period".

Or else what? And, what, more than the truths that—

1. No non-humans are ancestors of any humans,
2. No non-apes are ancestors of any apes,
3. (Ergo,) humans are not related to apes,

—do you need? And, to what end do you "need" this "more" that you say you'll need?

Because what you're saying is false.

If you "know" that what I'm saying is false, then why would you say "I'll need more than just" the three propositions you are calling "false"?

Non-humans are indeed ancestors of humans, and non-apes* are indeed ancestors of apes.

Each of your two propositions, here, is obviously false. Every parent of every human who has been born is, himself or herself, a human, and not a non-human. Here is a simple graphical representation of that elementary truth:

...H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H→H...

H = human
N = non-human
→ = gave birth to

Make that line of descent as many generations long as you like; you'll, nevertheless, never find one or more N's occurring the sequence. Here's something you will never find in that sequence:

...N→H...

Yet, you would need that—a non-human to have given birth to a human—to occur in a line of descent, in order for your proposition that non-humans are ancestors of humans to be true. I mean, it is so unbelievably easy to see that no non-human is ancestor to any human, that it is extremely difficult to imagine a way for you to not be lying to us, and to yourself, in your public repudiation of it.

You can easily find, with Google, your fellow Darwinists saying things like

• "The offspring of any living thing is the same species as its parent"
• "Every organism is the same species as its parent"

Which is the same as to say that, for instance, the parent of every human ever born is also a human. The truth that the parent of every human ever born is, himself or herself, a human, necessarily entails that every, single ancestor of every, single human with one or more ancestors is a human, and that not even a single one of them is a non-human.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Matthew 7:6
. 6Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Move on..... not worth your time and effort.

What I've been doing in this thread could, the way I see it, be best characterized as using a method of simple, clear, concise questioning of the utterances of Darwinistspeak as a means of cornering the Darwinists, like T. E. Smith, and Barbarian, into publicly trampling under their own feet their own cherished "pearls," their Darwinistspeak.

Just consider, for instance, the havoc that Barbarian, a professional Darwinist, made of his performance because he cannot deal rationally with the simple, obvious truth that dinosaurS are individualS, and that birdS are individualS (so that to say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" is to say "[Individuals] evolved into [individuals]"). He doesn't like that fact, not one bit; and what's more, he really doesn't like that fact being pointed out to him. But, he has absolutely no means of making it go away, of making it to stop being a fact, so he just sits there and hopes that merely repeatedly throwing his stale, nonsensical Darwinistspeak at it will somehow produce a result to his liking. How'd that work out for him?

 

[God Is My Judge]

What I've been doing in this thread could, the way I see it, be best characterized as using a method of simple, clear, concise questioning of the utterances of Darwinistspeak as a means of cornering the Darwinists, like T. E. Smith, and Barbarian, into publicly trampling under their own feet their own cherished "pearls," their Darwinistspeak.

Just consider, for instance, the havoc that Barbarian, a professional Darwinist, made of his performance because he cannot deal rationally with the simple, obvious truth that dinosaurS are individualS, and that birdS are individualS (so that to say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" is to say "[Individuals] evolved into [individuals]"). He doesn't like that fact, not one bit; and what's more, he really doesn't like that fact being pointed out to him. But, he has absolutely no means of making it go away, of making it to stop being a fact, so he just sits there and hopes that merely repeatedly throwing his stale, nonsensical Darwinistspeak at it will somehow produce a result to his liking. How'd that work out for him?

Not too well. I hear ya! Funny.

 

[Barbarian]

What I've been doing in this thread could, the way I see it, be best characterized as using a method of simple, clear, concise questioning of the utterances of Darwinistspeak as a means of cornering the Darwinists, like @T. E. Smith, and @Barbarian, into publicly trampling under their own feet their own cherished "pearls," their Darwinistspeak.

I can't help thinking that you'd do so much better here, if you calmed down a bit, and worked on putting a good argument together. Chanting things like "Darwinspeak" really degrades your credibility. You can do better.

Just consider, for instance, the havoc that Barbarian, a professional Darwinist, made of his performance because he cannot deal rationally with the simple, obvious truth that dinosaurS are individualS, and that birdS are individualS (so that to say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" is to say "[Individuals] evolved into [individuals]"). He doesn't like that fact, not one bit; and what's more, he really doesn't like that fact being pointed out to him.

As you learned, individuals don't evolve. So you're struggling with the problem of populations evolving. No dinosaur ever evolved into a bird. (No mammal ever evolved into a human, either) but dinosaurs (population, remember) did evolve into birds.

We all understand why this is so hard for you. It would be a lot easier, if evolutionary theory said "one day a dinosaur changed into a bird." And it's understandable why you would want scientists to say it. But that's not what happened, and from Darwin on, that's not the theory. Sorry. Dinosaurs are populations of individuals and birds are populations of individuals and you really don't like that being pointed out to you.

I think the issue is that like most creationists, you're locked into the assumption of essentialism, which assumes that there are nice, discrete kinds of things that never have transitional forms between them. This is why knowledgeable YE creationists like Kurt Wise and Todd Wood assert that the creationist challenge is to form a reasonable alternative theory to explain the evidence in a way that is consistent with YE beliefs. YE creationists are losing the debate because most of them simply deny the evidence.

Again, I'll ask you to show us what characteristics separate dinosaurs from birds. Do you think you can do that, now?


YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

 

[Barbarian]

To state the obvious, birds are a particular kind of dinosaur. I would again suggest to any denier that it would be useful for said denier to show us something characteristic of birds that is not true of other dinosaurs.

Humans are a particular kind of ape. We and chimpanzees form a genetic group that is different from other sorts of apes. There's no denying these facts, as even honest and informed creationists admit.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Again, I'll ask you to show us what characteristics separate dinosaurs from birds. Do you think you can do that, now?

Q. "what characteristics separate dinosaurs from [non-dinosaurs]"?

A. Um, the characteristic of being dinosaurs is what separates dinosaurs from non-dinosaurs. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I can't help thinking that you'd do so much better here, if you calmed down a bit, and worked on putting a good argument together. Chanting things like "Darwinspeak" really degrades your credibility. You can do better.

To the best of my recollection, I have never used your word, "Darwinspeak". All you've done in this forum is continually chant your Darwinistspeak, because you have no argument to offer.

As you learned, individuals don't evolve.

IOW, "As you learned, [living things] don't evolve."

No dinosaur ever evolved into a bird.

IOW, "No [living thing] ever evolved into a [living thing]."

(No mammal ever evolved into a human, either)

IOW, "(No [living thing] ever evolved into a [living thing], either)"

but dinosaurs (population, remember) did evolve into birds.

IOW, "but [individuals] did evolve into [individuals]."

Dinosaurs are populations of individuals and birds are populations of individuals and you really don't like that being pointed out to you.

IOW, "[Individuals] are populations of individuals and [individuals] are populations of individuals"

 

[Barbarian]

To the best of my recollection, I have never used your word, "Darwinspeak". All you've done in this forum is continually chant your Darwinistspeak, because you have no argument to offer.

Unfortunately, you seem to still be upset. I'm sorry to see that.

(Barbarian chides Paul for accusing him of lying)

So, I suppose you're not, after all, really much of an expert on what's and what's not "against the TOS here," but, out of curiosity, what do make of what T. E. Smith has just said to me (because (like you) he can't answer an elementary question about his use of the word, "birds")?

I have noticed that you continue to avoid telling us what you think the essential differences between dinosaurs and birds would be. So your continued evasion does make people think.

Do you think that T. E. Smith's having said to me, "You are raving," would not be considered, by most people, T. E. Smith's having made a derogatory personal remark against me? In fact, he devoted a whole, non-reply post to me, tagging my user name to get my attention, solely so that he could say to me, "You are raving." Just saying.

1.3: Use self control and focus on reconcilliation [sic] when discussing differences. Address the issue, not the person. Do not make derogatory personal remarks or you will be removed from the thread.

I've always thought that accusing one of lying is a derogatory remark. Do you not think so? As to your issues with T.E Smith, you two (or possibly a moderator) will have to sort that out. Meantime, do you think you could now tell us what the essential differences are between a dinosaur and a bird. That is, what characteristics are found in one group that is never found in the other? You're on.

 

[Barbarian]

Again, I'll ask you to show us what characteristics separate dinosaurs from birds. Do you think you can do that, now?

Q. "what characteristics separate dinosaurs from [non-dinosaurs]"?

A. Um, the characteristic of being dinosaurs is what separates dinosaurs from non-dinosaurs. Wouldn't you agree?

So, you think it's just a matter of what people call them, and there is no other difference? Like asking what the difference is between a table and a Tisch, um? No, you're still not there. There are some differences. It might be useful to think about the differences between a mammal and a human. Try that first. It's the same issue.

What do you have?

 

[Barbarian]

Oh, BTW, @Barbarian, I couldn't even find so much as either one of the words, "lie," "lying," or "liar," in the text of the TOS page, despite the fact that you said to me:

As I said, it comes down to whether or not you think accusing someone of lying is "derogatory." I think it is, but we might differ on that.

 

[Barbarian]

"More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. Phenotypic variations exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive."
YET he SAYS:
" I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created
parasitic wasp with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars"

Contradiction! Doesn't this make the wasp better suited for survival? What did he say above that? "Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive."

You've assumed that Darwin thought that evolution was a positive moral effect. In fact, he did not. It struck him as something that humans should actively work against, when it affects other humans. He even pointed out that to simply let the unfortunate die would be an "immediate overwhelming evil."

Some anti-evolutionists suppose that scientists accept the fact of evolution because we approve of it. In fact, we merely note that it is the reality we have.

 

[Barbarian]

You've got a lot of misconceptions therein. One of the most noticable:

No creature can add DNA to itself spontaneously. HOWEVER, MAD SCIENTIST HAVE NOW LEARNED TO DO SO THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF MAPPING THE GENOMES OF ALL SPECIES. It has never happened naturally and certainly no proof of- even the possibility of it happening has ever been presented.

New alleles are added to individuals constantly. You have about a hundred alleles in your DNA that were in neither of your parents. Genome mapping does not, however, add DNA to anything. New DNA information happens spontaneously and continuously with each new individual.