Creation vs. Evolution

[Jukia]

Funny...
Evolutionists have been proven wrong on everything they once believed about Neandertals. Yet you still clinging to your hopes.
Neandertals are our ancestors..science confirms it. Neandertals are descendants of Adam and Eve. Gods Word confirms it.

OK, so Noah did not need to take them aboard since human kind was covered by Noah and his family. Guess the Neanderthals were not doing what god wanted them to do so they got killed in the flood.

 

[alwight]

Funny...
Evolutionists have been proven wrong on everything they once believed about Neandertals.

Really? Not this particular "evolutionist" however.

Yet you still clinging to your hopes.
Neandertals are our ancestors..science confirms it. Neandertals are descendants of Adam and Eve. Gods Word confirms it.

Clearly you need to believe all that is true so your "facts" need to be extra-specially interpreted so that reality doesn't keep annoyingly getting in the way. lain:

 

[6days]

OK, so Noah did not need to take them aboard since human kind was covered by Noah and his family. Guess the Neanderthals were not doing what god wanted them to do so they got killed in the flood.

Still off topic but I did answer this for you on previous page.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Your problem Dave is that since we know these days that Neanderthals probably did have a different and often larger brain, of a different shape and after birth development, then it is simply indicative of them being a different species. All answered rather well by Darwin's theory about the origin of species even though he wouldn't really have known too much about Neanderthals when it was published.
Dolphin brains are comparable to both ours and Neanderthal's in size, so exactly how much size matters rather than what and how specific brains have evolved to do specifically what, is still moot.

If as it seems Neanderthals are indeed a different species to us was "Adam" simply an earlier common ancestor and thus not exactly the same as either homo sapiens or Neanderthals?
Is your theology flexible and accurate enough Dave to cover this?
I doubt it btw, which is why your problem seems to only involve finding areas of doubt and/or supposed conspiracy as perhaps little more than a smokescreen away from what is the more likely truth.

Brain size is a factor in the theory of human evolution, it goes from smaller to larger over time, and you bring up the size of a dolphins brain as if it proves what...:rotfl:

Increase in brain size is another "change" in the theory of human evolution, which I mentioned before.

Bipedalism vs. Brain Size

"Early researchers hypothesized that brain enlargement was the first hallmark of the hominin lineage. Beginning in the mid 1800's until the early 1900's, almost all known fossil hominins had relatively large brains. The large brain hypothesis was falsified after the discovery of early hominin fossils exhibiting ape-sized brains and bipedally-adapted morphology.

In 1924, Raymond Dart identified the first australopith fossil, known as the Taung Child, from South Africa. This specimen belonged to the species Au. africanus and had a relatively small brain similar to the size of a modern chimpanzees. The inferior placement of the foramen magnum, Dart argued, suggested that the Taung Child was bipedal. Dar's hypothesis that bipedalism evolved before larger brains ran counter to the scientific consensus at the time. Because of his small sample size and the fragmentary remains, debate about the timing of bipedalism and brain size continued for the next 50 years."

The mistakes/corrections made in the attempt to prove the evolution of man from the fossil record.

1. Making inaccurate claims with to little information

--Nebraska man
--Ramapithecus
--Taung child
--Java man​

2. Deliberate misconstruction

--Piltdown man
--Neanderthal​

3. Misdating

--Skull 1470​

4. Changes in theory

--Increase brain size precedes upright walking to upright walking precedes increase in brain size.​

--Dave

 

[Jukia]

Still off topic but I did answer this for you on previous page.

Sorry, I didn't see it before. So Neanderthals were a post Flood group of people. So within the last 4000 years or so?

 

[6days]

Evolutionists have been proven wrong on everything they once believed about Neandertals.

Really? Not this particular "evolutionist" however.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were incapable of speech.
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were carnivores.
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals had no culture
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals didn't bury their dead with ritual
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were dimwitted
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were a different species incapable of breeding with humans
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals didn't use tools
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

 

[alwight]

Brain size is a factor in the theory of human evolution, it goes from smaller to larger over time, and you bring up the size of a dolphins brain as if proves what...:rotfl:

Brain size means what specifically then Dave?
Are dolphins perhaps worthy of salvation because they have similar sized brains to humans?
If brain size is what matters perhaps dolphins are as special as us, perhaps more so, maybe they don't even need salvation and are without original sin Dave :shocked:, unless they are smart enough to sin? Dumb animals presumably don't sin?

Increase in brain size is another "change" in the theory of human evolution, which I mentioned before.

Bipedalism vs. Brain Size

"Early researchers hypothesized that brain enlargement was the first hallmark of the hominin lineage. Beginning in the mid 1800's until the early 1900's, almost all known fossil hominins had relatively large brains. The large brain hypothesis was falsified after the discovery of early hominin fossils exhibiting ape-sized brains and bipedally-adapted morphology.

In 1924, Raymond Dart identified the first australopith fossil, known as the Taung Child, from South Africa. This specimen belonged to the species Au. africanus and had a relatively small brain similar to the size of a modern chimpanzees. The inferior placement of the foramen magnum, Dart argued, suggested that the Taung Child was bipedal. Dar's hypothesis that bipedalism evolved before larger brains ran counter to the scientific consensus at the time. Because of his small sample size and the fragmentary remains, debate about the timing of bipedalism and brain size continued for the next 50 years."

The mistakes/corrections made in the attempt to prove the evolution of man from the fossil record.

1. Having to little information

--Nebraska man
--Ramapithecus
--Taung child
--Java man​

2. Deliberate misconstruction

--Piltdown man
--Neanderthal​

3. Misdating

--Skull 1470​

4. Change in theory

--Increase brain size precedes upright walking to upright walking precedes increase in brain size.​

--Dave

Dave I really think you should be concentrating on demonstrating something that falsifies Darwinian evolution, all human cutting edge scientific endeavour is associated with operational mistakes, falsification and sometimes fraud, along with rigorous research, general acceptance and genuine success.

 

[Jukia]

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were incapable of speech.
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were carnivores.
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals had no culture
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals didn't bury their dead with ritual
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were dimwitted
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were a different species incapable of breeding with humans
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals didn't use tools
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Wow, I think it is really great how you get to pick and choose what you think science tells us. You have this great list. Earlier you said Neanderthals were a group of humans post Flood. How do you get to say that and ignore the science that suggests they were around 300,000+ years ago yet to get to believe the above list?

Must be nice to be able to pick and choose what you get to believe. Makes it so easy to ignore many, many facts.

 

[6days]

The mistakes/corrections made in the attempt to prove the evolution of man from the fossil record.

1. Making inaccurate claims with to little information

--Nebraska man
--Ramapithecus
--Taung child
--Java man​

2. Deliberate misconstruction

--Piltdown man
--Neanderthal​

3. Misdating

--Skull 1470​

4. Changes in theory

--Increase brain size precedes upright walking to upright walking precedes increase in brain size.​

--Dave

Dave...
Isn't it interesting, that science has proven some of those frauds and faulty interpretations were wrong. Yet when you asked someone to concede those points were correct, they throw up red herrings. It seems bad science is preferable to science which shows the Biblical model is correct

 

[alwight]

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were incapable of speech.
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were carnivores.
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals had no culture
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals didn't bury their dead with ritual
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were dimwitted
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were a different species incapable of breeding with humans
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals didn't use tools
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

You're just making up even more nonsense and lining up straw men now 6days, who exactly were these "evolutionists" that believed all this stuff? Were they perhaps Victorians trying to understand all the evidence and the ToE?
Scientists are "evolutionists" too, "evolutionist" scientists correct science, science corrects its own mistakes, that's rather how it is supposed to work.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Wow, I think it is really great how you get to pick and choose what you think science tells us. You have this great list. Earlier you said Neanderthals were a group of humans post Flood. How do you get to say that and ignore the science that suggests they were around 300,000+ years ago yet to get to believe the above list?

Must be nice to be able to pick and choose what you get to believe. Makes it so easy to ignore many, many facts.

Since science has proven most of what you believe to be false, I can see how you would think our position nice.

And why you would be frustrated into accusing sons of God of ignoring your other assumptions that you speak of as facts.

Sorry, but my Father has never been proven wrong.

 

[alwight]

Since science has disproved most of what you believe to be false, I can see how you would think our position nice.

And why you would be frustrated into accusing sons of God of ignoring your other assumptions that you speak of as facts.

Sorry, but my Father has never been proven wrong.

As far as I can tell anyway your "Father" is only an un-falsifiable assertion, what would falsify God?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Sorry, I didn't see it before. So Neanderthals were a post Flood group of people. So within the last 4000 years or so?

I've seen guys who could pass for Neanderthals in the last four years or so.

 

[6days]

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were incapable of speech.
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were carnivores.
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals had no culture
Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals didn't bury their dead with ritual

Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were dimwitted

Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals were a different species incapable of breeding with humans

Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Evolutionists believed Neandertals didn't use tools

Science proved evolutionists were wrong.

Wow, I think it is really great how you get to pick and choose what you think science tells us. You have this great list. Earlier you said Neanderthals were a group of humans post Flood. How do you get to say that and ignore the science that suggests they were around 300,000+ years ago yet to get to believe the above list?

Must be nice to be able to pick and choose what you get to believe. Makes it so easy to ignore many, many facts.

Jukia... If anything on the "great list" is incorrect, please let me know.

Perhaps if evolutionists were wrong about everything there..... they might be wrong about the date also?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Brain size means what specifically then Dave?
Are dolphins perhaps worthy of salvation because they have similar sized brains to humans?
If brain size is what matters perhaps dolphins are as special as us, perhaps more so, maybe they don't even need salvation and are without original sin Dave :shocked:, unless they are smart enough to sin? Dumb animals presumably don't sin?

Dave I really think you should be concentrating on demonstrating something that falsifies Darwinian evolution, all human cutting edge scientific endeavour is associated with operational mistakes, falsification and sometimes fraud, along with rigorous research, general acceptance and genuine success.

Brain size in human evolution goes from small to large over time.

But if you want to talk about dolphins then I suggest another thread--saving dolphins.

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

As far as I can tell anyway your "Father" is only an un-falsifiable assertion, what would falsify God?

Nothing outside of mans imagination.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 1Mind,

Man has a good imagination, but God has a vast imagination. Look at every and each Creation. A daisy, an orchid, and Easter Lily, Man's nervous system and how long it is. I am just touching on what is so Great. Few know what they are missing.

God's Best,

Michael

 

[alwight]

Brain size in human evolution goes from small to large over time.

Well, if you can accept that greater complexity over time is what the evidence seems to show despite any occasional bungled or inaccurate scientific conclusion and that is because of evolution not creation, then we have no problem. Somehow however I rather suspect that isn't what you do think.

But if you want to talk about dolphins then I suggest another thread--saving dolphins.

--Dave

Surely brains seem to just evolve to suit a particular purpose, just like everything else that has evolved over time. Neanderthals had their version of what worked for them (or perhaps didn't in the end) while dolphins and us have theirs.
Are we really so special Dave?

 

[gcthomas]

"Early researchers hypothesized that brain enlargement was the first hallmark of the hominin lineage. Beginning in the mid 1800's until the early 1900's, almost all known fossil hominins had relatively large brains. The large brain hypothesis was falsified after the discovery of early hominin fossils exhibiting ape-sized brains and bipedally-adapted morphology.
...
4. Changes in theory

--Increase brain size precedes upright walking to upright walking precedes increase in brain size.​

You seem to be conflating established theory with tentative hypothesis. The rejection of hypotheses is how science works. Didn't you know that?

In any case, how would having rightly rejected hypotheses form over a century ago possibly cause us to reject what remains in the theory which wasn't rejected?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, if you can accept that greater complexity over time is what the evidence seems to show despite any occasional bungled or inaccurate scientific conclusion and that is because of evolution not creation, then we have no problem. Somehow however I rather suspect that isn't what you do think.

Surely brains seem to just evolve to suit a particular purpose, just like everything else that has evolved over time. Neanderthals had their version of what worked for them (or perhaps didn't in the end) while dolphins and us have theirs.
Are we really so special Dave?

Complexity over time is exactly what the theory of evolution is.

If atheism is true then of course we're not special.

If the world did evolve or if it is clear that the trend toward complexity is not possible by the laws of physics then atheism is not true.

See how logic works, you all would agree, yes?

--Dave